1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EBONY BYRD, Case No. 24-cv-01639-AMO

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

9 v. MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY

STAY

10 M.A.C. COSMETICS INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 49 Defendants. 11

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc.’s (“M.A.C.”) motion to dismiss 14 Plaintiff Ebony Byrd’s (“Byrd”) complaint, or alternatively, to stay the action. This Order assumes 15 familiarity with the facts and claims of this case as well as those of Ignacio Maciel et al. v. M.A.C. 16 Cosmetics, Inc., No. 3:23-CV-3718-AMO (“Maciel”). The motion is fully briefed and suitable for 17 decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for October 21, 2024, is VACATED. 18 See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments 19 and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS M.A.C.’s 20 motion for a discretionary stay for the following reasons. 21 While M.A.C. primarily argues for this case to be dismissed or stayed pursuant to the first- 22 to-file rule, it remains an open question in this Circuit whether the rule applies to actions within 23 the same district, as is the case here. See Dolores Press, Inc. v. Robinson, 766 F. App’x 449, 453 24 (9th Cir. 2019); Zhang v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc., No. 21-CV-07652-LB, 2022 WL 718486 25 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2022). That issue need not be resolved as the relevant factors support granting 26 a discretionary stay based on the Court’s inherent authority. 27 “A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in 1 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). In determining whether a stay is an 2 || appropriate use of this authority, courts must weigh competing interests, including “the possible 3 |} damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may 4 suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 5 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to 6 || result from a stay.” Id. 7 It is appropriate to issue a discretionary stay here. Byrd and Maciel involve nearly-identical 8 || putative classes, the same defendant, and significantly similar facts and claims. However, the 9 cases are at considerably different stages. In Maciel, discovery is closed and class certification 10 || briefing is set to conclude within several months. In contrast, discovery has not yet begun in Byrd. 11 There is thus no obvious damage from staying Byrd pending further proceedings in Maciel, and 12 || doing so is likely to simplify the issues and questions of law and promote judicial economy. 13 Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS this action pending further proceedings in Maciel.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. A 16 Dated: October 15, 2024 . Ooch Melt

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN

19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28