Ocampo v. Apple Inc.

Background At the court’s request, the parties submitted their positions on whether the action should be stayed, or paused, while the Ninth Circuit decided Taleshpour v. Apple Inc., No. 21-16282.

Reasoning The court explained that it has inherent authority to stay proceedings to manage its docket efficiently. It considered possible harm to nonparties, hardship or inequity to the parties, and whether a stay would promote the orderly resolution of the issues. The court found no potential harm to nonparties from a stay. It characterized Apple’s concerns as mainly involving the possibility that Apple would have to continue defending the action. The court concluded that continuing the case to judgment could prejudice the plaintiffs if the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision in Taleshpour. The court also found that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could simplify the case by providing guidance on whether and how the plaintiffs could proceed with their claims.

Order The court STAYS the action. The plaintiffs must file a Third Amended Complaint within 10 days after the Ninth Circuit rules in Taleshpour. The clerk was directed to administratively close the file. The opinion does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.