Anne Heiting v. Marriott International Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 26, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-10822
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-10822-JLS-MAA Date: May 26, 2024 Title: Anne Heiting v. Marriot International, Inc., et al.

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Charles A. Rojas N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendant:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE STAYED

On May 14, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc in the case Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 2024 WL 2148754 (9th Cir. May 14, 2024.) Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority, identifying Shopify as a case that “Defendant cited exenstively in support of its motion [to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction].” (Notice at 2, Doc. 32.) Defendant responded, arguing that “pre-Shopify authority establish[es] that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction.” (Response at 2, Doc. 33.)

There is certainly other case law in the Ninth Circuit that applies the principles of personal jurisdiction to a defendant’s online activity, but Shopify was particularly on point. Like the present action, it featured allegations of data harvesting, in violation of California’s privacy laws, and directly addressed what a “broadly accessible web-based platform” must do to “have a ‘forum-specific focus.’” Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 87 F.4th 404, 422 (9th Cir. 2023), reh’g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 2024 WL 2148754 (9th Cir. May 14, 2024). Whatever the outcome in the en banc case, it will bear on the proper method for evaluating whether Defendant’s online activity here was directed at California.

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:23-cv-10822-JLS-MAA Date: May 26, 2024 Title: Anne Heiting v. Marriot International, Inc., et al.

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “Discretion to stay a case is appropriately exercised when the resolution of another matter will have a direct impact on the issues before the court, thereby substantially simplifying the issues presented.” Mendez v. Optio Sols., LLC, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 1232 (S.D. Cal. 2017). In light of the direct impact that the outcome in Shopify will have in this action, the parties are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be stayed. Plaintiffs shall provide a written response, within seven (7) days of the issuance of this Order. Defendant shall then respond, within seven (7) days of the issuance of Plaintiff’s brief. Neither brief shall exceed six pages and no further briefing is allowed. The Court will determine whether to stay the action after it is in receipt of the response from both parties.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: cr

______________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 2