Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 270
if it allowed discovery to proceed, especially if it later determined that the case must be
dismissed for a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. The court thereby ruled that a stay
would be appropriate, and granted the defendant’s motion to stay discovery pending the
resolution of the motion to dismiss.
The court in Halman Aldubi Provident & Pension Funds Ltd., et al. v. Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136781 (E.D. Penn. Aug. 2,
2022), examined a stay when a related lawsuit had the potential to impact the class
action. The plaintiff in Halman Aldubi Provident alleged that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements and by
failing to disclose material information about Teva’s drug Copaxone. The defendants
filed a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of a related enforcement action
brought against Teva by the U.S. Department of Justice (the DOJ Action). Id. at *2-3.
The court granted the motion. The DOJ Action asserted that Teva made unlawful
“kickbacks” that allowed the company to increase the price of Copaxone while leaving
“American taxpayers to shoulder the high prices that Teva set.” Id. at *9. In that case,
discovery was currently underway. The plaintiff asserted that the instant matter did not
“inextricably overlap” with the DOJ Action and it may take years to resolve the DOJ
Action, so an indefinite stay pending resolution of the DOJ Action “would unfairly
prejudice” the plaintiff “and other class members.” Id. at *10. The court determined that
a stay would not prejudice the plaintiff, as the stay would not likely be in place for an
extended period of time, as the DOJ Action was much further along in the discovery
process, dispositive motion practice was scheduled to begin in March 2023, and the trial
was set to begin in September 2023. Id. at *11. The court reasoned that Teva would be
prejudiced if the case proceeded prior to the resolution of the DOJ Action, as both cases
would have extensive discovery with a substantial overlap. The court also reasoned that
staying this case pending the resolution of the DOJ Action would narrow the issues to
be resolved and avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications. Weighing the factors
together, the court found that it would be appropriate to stay this matter pending the
resolution of the DOJ Action. The defendant also moved to bifurcate in order to permit
the class certification proceedings to move forward. The court agreed that this would
promote judicial efficiency because the primary issues on class certification were
whether the plaintiff could fairly and adequately protect the interests of the purported
class and whether the defendants’ alleged misstatements actually affected the price of
Teva’s securities, neither of which would directly impact any issues to be resolved in the
DOJ Action. Id. at *21. For these reasons, the court granted defendant’s motion.
The court in Cartee-Haring, et al. v. Central Bucks School District, 2022 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 197324 (E.D. Penn. Oct. 31, 2022), analyzed the propriety of a stay in a
collective action under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) that the court previously had
conditionally certified. The plaintiff in Cartee-Haring, a female schoolteacher, filed an
EPA action alleging that the defendant, her employer, discriminated against her and
other female teachers on the basis of their sex. The defendant objected the certification
order on the ground that collective action members were are not entitled to damages
that occurred outside of the EPA’s three-year statute of limitations. It moved for a stay
and to certify for interlocutory appeal the court’s grant of conditional certification. The
court denied the motion on the basis that accrual did not occur for all claims under the
269
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
