United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
SHEILAR SMITH and KASANDRA ANTON, on Behalf of Themselves, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the OSF Plans, Plaintiff,
OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, an Illinois Non-Profit Corporation, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE United States District Judge
have filed what amounts to a third motion to stay all
proceedings in this case (Doc. 62) and have requested a
hearing on the motion (Doc. 66). Specifically, Defendants
seek a stay of all proceedings in this case pending: (1) the
ruling of the district court in Bailey v. OSF HealthCare
System, No.1:16-cv-1137-SLD-JED (C.D. Ill.)
(“Bailey”), regarding Proposed
Intervenors Smith and Anton's motions to intervene and
transfer Bailey to this district; (2) the ruling of
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
“Panel”) regarding OSF's motion to transfer
the instant action (“Smith”) and the
Bailey action to the Central District of Illinois
for coordination of pretrial proceedings; and (3) the Supreme
Court's disposition of pending petitions for writ of
certiorari in Kaplan v. Saint Peter's Healthcare
Sys., 810 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2015), petition for
cert. filed, July 18, 2016 (No. 16-86); Stapleton v.
Advocate Health Care Network, 817 F.3d 517 (7th Cir.
2016), petition for cert. filed, July 15, 2016 (No.
16-74); Rollins v. Dignity Health, 830 F.3d 900 (9th
Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed, Aug. 29, 2016
(No. 16- 258). After the first two motions to stay were
denied, Magistrate Judge Daly entered a Scheduling and
Discovery Order (Doc. 61). Deadlines are now set for
discovery, class certification and dispositive motions and
trial is scheduled.
initial matter and with respect to Defendants' motion for
hearing, the Court finds that the issues are straightforward
and uncomplicated and have been sufficiently briefed by the
parties. As such, a hearing on the motion would not be
helpful nor would it serve the purposes of judicial economy.
Accordingly, Defendants' motion (Doc. 66) is DENIED.
there are three cases with issues relevant to this action
seeking review before the Supreme Court. See Advocate
Health Care Network v. Stapleton, Pet. for Cert., No.
16-74 (July 15, 2016); Saint Peter's Healthcare
System v. Kaplan, Pet. for Cert., No. 16-86 (July 18,
2016); Dignity Health et al. v. Rollins, Pet. for
Cert., No. 16-258 (Aug. 29, 2016). Defendants contend that
the Supreme Court's ultimate determination in these cases
would have a “profound effect” on this case.
However, while a particular ruling by the Supreme Court may
potentially be dispositive as to one issue, it would not
dispose of the entire litigation. This is an insufficient
basis to stay this matter.
also argue that a stay is warranted pending the ruling of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL
Panel”) regarding Defendants' motion to transfer
this case to the Central District of Illinois and to
consolidate it with Bailey. Federal Rule of
Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
1.5 provides that the pendency of a motion for transfer to
the MDL “does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial
proceedings in the district court in which the action is
pending and does not in any way limit the pretrial
jurisdiction of that court.” See also Manual for
Complex Litigation, Federal Judicial Center, Section 20.131
and Section 22.35 (4th ed. 2004).
this Court does not have a crystal ball as to what the
JPML's ultimate decision will be, given that there are
only two actions currently pending in the same state and in
neighboring districts, the likelihood that Defendants will
succeed on their motion to transfer is not great. At any
rate, this Court finds no compelling reason to stay the
instant proceedings until sometime beyond December 1, 2016
when the JPML will rule on the motion. Discovery and motion
deadlines are already set in this case. Given the current
procedural posture, a stay would only delay discovery and
pretrial procedures that will be required regardless of where
the case is pending. The Court will of course monitor any
orders from the MDL Panel relating to this case.
a stay pending Judge Darrow's ruling on the motion to
intervene and transfer Bailey to this district is
not warranted. Should the motion be granted, the case
will be consolidated with the instant action and the current
scheduling order will apply. On the other hand, if the motion
is denied, the two cases will continue to be litigated
separately. A stay would only operate to unnecessarily delay
discovery in this matter. While that may be a preferred
outcome for Defendants, the Court remains persuaded that it
is not justified. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Stay
(Doc. 62) is DENIED.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Court takes note that Defendants
are not seeking a stay of proceedings in Bailey
pending rulings by the Supreme Court or JPML although the
arguments advanced in support of the instant ...