Leonard v. The Boeing Company Inc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 JEFFERY LEONARD, CASE NO. C25-1551JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. THE BOEING COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

15 Before the court are (1) Defendant The Boeing Company, Inc.’s (“Boeing”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jeffery Leonard’s class action complaint (MTD (Dkt. # 11)) and motion for judicial notice (MJN (Dkt. # 12)) and (2) Mr. Leonard’s motion to stay the proceedings in this matter pending the resolution of his forthcoming motion to remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (MTS (Dkt. # 14)).

20 Boeing removed the matter to this court on August 14, 2025, asserting subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. (See Not. of Removal (Dkt.

22 # 1).) It filed its motion to dismiss on August 21, 2025. (See MTD.) Mr. Leonard filed his motion to stay on September 4, 2025. (See MTS.) Mr. Leonard states that he intends to file his motion to remand by no later than October 3, 2025, and asks the court to suspend his deadline for responding to Boeing’s motion to dismiss until after the court resolves the motion to stay. (Id. at 1.) On September 5, 2025, the court suspended the briefing schedule on Boeing’s motion to dismiss and ordered briefing on Mr. Leonard’s motion to stay. (9/5/25 Order (Dkt. # 15).) Boeing filed a timely opposition to Mr. Leonard’s motion to stay. (MTS Resp. (Dkt. # 16).) Mr. Leonard did not file a reply in support of his motion. (See generally Dkt.)

9 To evaluate whether to stay an action, a court must weigh the competing interests which will be affected by granting or refusing to grant a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 11 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Among these interests are: (1) the possible damage which may result from granting a stay, (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer by having to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. Id. (citing Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936)). Here, Boeing asserts that granting an indefinite stay of the resolution of its motion to dismiss would threaten the stability of its collective bargaining agreement; that refusing to grant the stay will not cause hardship to Mr. Leonard; and that granting the stay would disrupt the orderly course of justice because Boeing’s motion to dismiss and Mr. Leonard’s pending motion to remand involve overlapping issues that the court should evaluate at the same time. (See generally MTS Resp.) Boeing urges the court to consider the motion to dismiss and the motion to remand concurrently rather than wait to consider the motion to dismiss until after it decides the motion to remand. (Id.) 3 The court agrees with Boeing that it would promote the orderly course of justice for the court to consider the parties’ motions at the same time, and that doing so will not cause harm to Mr. Leonard. Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows: 6 1. Mr. Leonard’s motion to stay (Dkt. # 14) is DENIED.

7 2. Mr. Leonard shall file his motion to remand by no later than October 3, 2025. (See MTS at 1.)

9 3. Mr. Leonard shall file his oppositions to Boeing’s motions to dismiss and for judicial notice, and Boeing shall file its opposition to Mr. Leonard’s motion to remand, by no later than October 24, 2025. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(4) (requiring parties to file oppositions to motions to dismiss and motions to remand no later than 21 days after the filing date of the motion).

14 4. The parties shall file optional replies in support of their motions by no later than October 31, 2025. See id. (requiring parties to file replies no later than 28 days after the filing date of the motion).

17 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to renote Boeing’s motions to dismiss (Dkt. # 11) and for judicial notice (Dkt. # 12) for October 31, 2025.

19 Dated this 29th day of September, 2025.

A JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge