Strenfel v. T-Mobile USA Inc

1 THE HONORABLE BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON No. 2:21-cv-01208-BJR DANIEL STRENFEL, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER Plaintiff, TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING 10 JPML’S RULING ON TRANSFER v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant.

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER Perkins Coie LLP 1 Under Western District of Washington Local Rules 7(d)(1) and 10(g), Plaintiff Daniel Strenfel and Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (together “the Parties”), move the Court to stay all proceedings and deadlines in this action pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on the pending motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (“MDL Petition”).

5 See In re: T-Mobile Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig. (“In re: T-Mobile”), MDL No. 3019 (ECF No. 1). In support of this motion, the Parties state: 7 Plaintiff filed this case on September 3, 2021. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleges T-Mobile failed to adequately safeguard the personal information of its customers from a criminal third-party actor. Id. The plaintiffs in over 40 putative class actions have made similar allegations against T-Mobile based on the same data-security incident. See In re T-Mobile, MDL No. 3019 (ECF Nos. 1-1, 2, 8-1, 11, 20, 48, 62, 65, 70). These cases are pending in over ten federal judicial districts. See id. 13 The parties previously conferred about staying this action but were unable to reach agreement. See ECF No. 27. T-Mobile subsequently filed a motion to stay proceedings pending a ruling by the JPML on the motion for transfer. See ECF No. 26. Plaintiff filed a response opposing that motion on October 22, 2021. See ECF No. 30. On November 3, 2021, Plaintiff informed T-Mobile that he consented to a stay. Accordingly, the previously filed contested stay motion is no longer necessary. T-Mobile hereby withdraws the previously filed motion to stay, and Plaintiff hereby withdraws his opposition to that motion.

20 In a related case, this Court recently granted T-Mobile’s motion requesting a stay pending the JPML’s ruling on a motion to transfer, noting: 22 Any delay arising from a stay is likely to be short, and Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that any significant prejudice would result 23 from a short stay. A stay is also likely to conserve judicial resources, as well as the parties’ resources, until the JPML decides whether STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER Perkins Coie LLP 1 (and if so, where) to transfer the dozens of similar cases for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Daruwalla v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01118-BJR (W.D. Wash. Oct. 29, 2021) (ECF No. 39).

Moreover, pursuant to stipulated motions, this Court recently stayed eight additional related cases. See Donovan v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01138-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept.

20, 2021) (ECF No. 13); Akins v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01179-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept.

20, 2021) (ECF No. 11); Hughes v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01139-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 15); Villalon v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1148-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 13); Espanoza v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1119-BJR (W.D.

Wash. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 30); Huerta v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01183-BJR (W.D. Wash. Sept. 29, 2021) (ECF No. 10); Brackman v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-01277- BJR (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2021) (ECF No. 13); Schupler v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-01161- BJR (W.D. Wash. Nov. 1, 2021) (ECF No. 9). Nine other courts have also granted similar stays.

See Avrech v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-6660 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2021) (ECF No. 27); Savick v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-16005 (D.N.J. Oct. 4, 2021) (ECF No. 12); Hill v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-4164 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 5, 2021) (ECF No. 14); Sadrgilany v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-16155 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2021) (ECF No. 11); Christie v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-16181 (D.N.J. Oct. 7, 2021) (ECF No. 10); Palomino v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 3:21-cv- 16536 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2021) (ECF No. 12); Peralta v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 5:21-cv-838 (W.D.

Okla. Oct. 8, 2021) (ECF No. 10); Feinberg v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-7531 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2021) (ECF No. 16); Lang v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. No. 5:21-cv-6879 (N.D. Cal. Oct.

14, 2021) (ECF No. 16); Lomax v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-1764 (D. Nev. Oct. 15, 2021) (ECF No. 14); Winkler v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 7:21-cv-322 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2021) (ECF STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER Perkins Coie LLP No. 8); Metzger v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-4721 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2021) (docket order); Bensen v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-06628 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2021) (ECF No. 6).

3 As in Daruwalla and the above-referenced cases, good cause exists for a stay in this matter.

4 Given the number of similar, overlapping cases and the fact that no party opposes centralization, it is likely the JPML will grant the pending motion to transfer and coordinate or consolidate the related cases for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re: T-Mobile, MDL No. 3019 (ECF No. 1). This case was noticed to the JPML because of its related nature. See id. (ECF No. 48). In order to conserve judicial resources and the resources of the Parties in addressing multiple, related putative class actions, the Parties agree to this stay. Under these circumstances, “[c]ourts frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to transfer a case.”

11 Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998); see Short v. Hyundai Motor Am. Inc., No. C19-0318JLR,, 2019 WL 3067251 (W.D. Wash. July 12, 2019) (granting stay pending JPML’s ruling on Section 1407 motion); Gonzalez v. Merck & Co., No. 07-cv-3034, 2007 14 WL 2220286, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 2, 2007) (granting defendant’s motion to stay pending transfer decision and noting that “well settled case law . . . dictates a stay should be granted to promote judicial economy”); Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (granting stay pending JPML’s ruling because “a majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel”); Bonefant v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 07-cv-60301, 2007 20 WL 2409980, at *1 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007) (“[I]t is common practice for courts to stay an action pending a transfer decision by the JPML.”).

22 Consistent with the rulings of this Court and many others, the Court should grant the Parties a short stay of proceedings until the JPML rules on the MDL Petition. The Parties agree to notify STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER Perkins Coie LLP the Court of the JPML ruling on the MDL Petition and a briefing schedule on T-Mobile USA Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration within 7 days of the decision in the event that this case is not transferred.

4 Dated: November 4, 2021 By: /s/ Steve Y. Koh Steve Y. Koh, WSBA No. 23284 Kathleen M. O’Sullivan, WSBA No. 27850 Lauren J. Tsuji, WSBA No. 55839 PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000 E-mail: [email protected] 10 [email protected] [email protected] Kristine McAlister Brown (pro hac vice) ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. By: /s/ Manish Borde__________ 17 Manish Borde, WSBA #39503 BORDE LAW PLLC Stewart St., Ste. 400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 905-6129 19 E-mail: [email protected] RONALD M. MARRON ALEXIS M. WOOD KAS L. GALLUCCI LAW OFFICES OF RONALD M. MARRON Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 [email protected] STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER Perkins Coie LLP [email protected] [email protected] MARGARET MACLEAN CHRISTIAN LEVIS AMANDA FIORILLA LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.

4 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER Perkins Coie LLP 1 ORDER Having reviewed the stipulated motion of the parties, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion to stay proceedings (Dkt. No. 31).

This matter is STAYED pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on the pending motion to transfer in In re: T-Mobile Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 3019.

6 (2) Defendant’s pending motion in this matter to stay proceedings pending action by the 7 JPML (Dkt. No. 26) is WITHDRAWN and shall be STRICKEN from the Court’s 8 motions calendar. (3) Briefing on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. No. 28) is STAYED in light of this Order staying this action. In the event that this case is not transferred to another judicial district by the JPML, the parties shall notify the Court of the JPML ruling on the pending motion to transfer and propose a new briefing schedule on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration within 7 days of the JPML’s decision.

Dated this 5th day of November, 2021.

A 16 Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER Perkins Coie LLP