Willis v. Procter & Gamble Company
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-04461
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Willis v. Procter & Gamble, Judge Cronan granted the parties’ joint request to stay deadlines and proceedings pending a multidistrict-panel ruling.
The stay affects Teretta Willis, Sharon Beck, the other plaintiffs, and The Procter & Gamble Company by pausing deadlines and proceedings in the case until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation rules on the transfer request.
What happened
In Willis v. Procter & Gamble Co., the parties asked the court to pause all deadlines and proceedings while a federal panel considered whether to combine this case with six similar cases and transfer them for coordinated handling. The plaintiffs agreed to the request.
The court found that pausing the case would conserve resources, avoid duplicative proceedings, and reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings. The case was still in its early stages, and the federal panel had not yet decided whether or where to transfer the cases.
The court granted the parties’ joint request to stay the case pending the panel’s ruling. It directed the parties to file a joint status letter within one week after that ruling and directed the Clerk to stay the case and close Docket Number 9. Judge John P. Cronan signed the order.
The detailed version
- Willis v. Procter & Gamble Company · No. 1:25-cv-04461
- John Cronan
- June 18, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Teretta Willis and Sharon Beck, along with other plaintiffs, sued The Procter & Gamble Company over allegations that the opinion describes as factually similar to allegations in six other cases. The plaintiffs had previously filed related claims in another federal court and voluntarily dismissed them before bringing this case.
On June 2, 2025, three plaintiffs in the earlier related proceeding asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate this case and six other cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The panel was scheduled to hear argument on that request on July 31, 2025.
Motion and Analysis
Procter & Gamble filed a letter motion asking the court to stay, or pause, all deadlines and proceedings until the panel ruled on the transfer request. The requested stay included responding to the complaint and conducting discovery. The plaintiffs consented to the motion.
The court found good cause for the stay. It concluded that pausing the case would avoid potentially duplicative proceedings, conserve the parties’ and courts’ resources, and reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings. The court also noted that the case was in its early stages and that the plaintiffs agreed a stay was appropriate.
Ruling
The parties’ joint request for a stay was granted. The court stayed the case pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s ruling on the transfer request. The parties must file a joint status letter about next steps within one week after the panel issues its ruling. The Clerk of Court was directed to stay the case and close Docket Number 9. The order does not decide the underlying allegations or claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.