Saunders v. Sunrun, Inc.

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 CURTIS SAUNDERS, Case No. 19-cv-04548-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 52 10 SUNRUN, INC., 11 Defendant. [12] 13 Before the Court is the motion filed by Defendant Sunrun, Inc. (“Sunrun”) to stay the 14 Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claim alleged in Plaintiff Curtis Saunders’s class 15 action complaint. Dkt. No. 52 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff alleges two causes of action: violations of (1) 16 the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227et seq.; and (2) the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. 17 Pen. Code § 632.7. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”) at ¶¶ 3, 6. The Court previously stayed the CIPA claim 18 pending the California Supreme Court’s review of Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 43 Cal. App. 5th 844 , 19 848 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). Dkt. No. 45. Defendant now seeks to stay the TCPA claim pending the 20 United States Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511, 2020 WL 21 3865252 (Mem) (pet. granted U.S. July 9, 2020). Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 22 54 (“Opp.”). 23 According to Plaintiff, Defendant violated the TCPA by sending unauthorized text 24 messages using an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). Compl. at ¶¶ 35, 37. The 25 TCPA prohibits placing calls1 to cellular telephone lines using an ATDS without the recipient’s 26 consent. 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A). The TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment which has the [27] 1 capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential 2 number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” Id. §227(a)(1). Notably, there is a circuit split 3 concerning the scope of the definition of an ATDS. Compare Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, [4] 904 F.3d 1041, 1043 (9th Cir. 2018), and Allan v. Pennsylvania Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, [5] 968 F.3d 567, 574 (6th Cir. 2020), with Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc., 894 F.3d 116, 121 (3d Cir. 6 2018), and Gadelhak v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 950 F.3d 458, 469 (7th Cir. 2020), and Glasser v. 7 Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC, 948 F.3d 1301 , 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2020). On July 9, 2020 8 the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid to address TCPA’s definition of 9 an ATDS, and oral argument has been set for December 8, 2020. Dkt. No. 55 at 2. 10 Given the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari and forthcoming decision, the Court 11 exercises its discretion to stay Plaintiff’s TCPA claim. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 , 12 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to 13 control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 14 counsel, and for litigants.”). In deciding whether to issue a stay, the Court considers three factors: 15 (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay;” (2) “the hardship or 16 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward;” and (3) “the orderly course of 17 justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 18 which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 19 1962). The Court finds in its discretion that both party and judicial resources will be most [20] 21 efficiently used if the TCPA claim is stayed until the Supreme Court clarifies the scope of the 22 TCPA’s definition of an ATDS. The parties correctly note that a decision in Duguid will likely 23 simplify the matter and inform the parameters of discovery. See Mot. 7; Opp. 1. And there [24] appears to be minimal risk of prejudice to either party, particularly in the light of Plaintiff’s [25] consent. See Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 16-cv-00254-HSG, 2016 U.S. Dist. 26 LEXIS 91758 , at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2016) (granting motion to stay after heavily weighing [27] 1 in duration. See Stone v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-00711-MCE, 2015 WL 2 || 4602968, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2015) (noting minimal harm to plaintiff from staying case due 3 || to Supreme Court’s customary practice to decide cases within twelve months). 4 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s unopposed motion to stay the TCPA claim 5 pending the Duguid decision. The Court directs the parties to submit a joint status report within [6] 48 hours of the Duguid decision. The status report should simply attach the decision with no legal [7] or factual argument or characterization. [9] 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 10/29/2020 12 Abipured 5 Mbt □□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. = United States District Judge [17] Z 18