Penning v. Microsoft Corporation

W.D. Washington

Penning v. Microsoft Corporation

DecidedJune 24, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-00570

StatusUnknown

This text of Penning v. Microsoft Corporation (Penning v. Microsoft Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Penning v. Microsoft Corporation, (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 STACY PENNING, et al., CASE NO. C25-0570JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 12 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 13 Defendant. 14

15 Before the court is Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion to 16 dismiss this matter for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. (MTD (Dkt. 17 # 14).) Throughout its brief, Microsoft cites this court’s dismissal order in Popa v. PSP 18 Group, LLC in support of its argument that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring 19 this case. (See, e.g., id. at 2 (quoting Popa v. PSP Grp. LLC, No. C23-0294, 2023 WL 20 7001456, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 24, 2023)); see also id. at 4, 8, 9, 10 (citing or quoting 21 Popa).) The court’s dismissal order in Popa, however, is currently on appeal to the Ninth 22 1 Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument on the matter on January 16, 2025. 2 See Popa v. PSP Grp. LLC, No. 24-14 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025), Dkt. # 64.

3 Because the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Popa is likely to provide guidance on how 4 to analyze the standing issues in this case, it is the view of the court that a stay of this 5 action pending the resolution of the Popa appeal will further the interests of judicial 6 economy and minimize the risk of inconsistent rulings. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 7 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (holding that the power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent 8 in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time

9 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”); Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 10 Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is 11 efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an 12 action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the 13 case.”). Therefore, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause why the court should

14 not stay this matter pending the issuance of the mandate in the Popa appeal. The parties’ 15 responses shall be no more than 1,200 words in length and shall be filed by no later than 16 July 1, 2025. Failure to respond to this order will be construed as consent to a stay. 17 Dated this 24th day of June, 2025. 18 A 19 20 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 STACY PENNING, et al., CASE NO. C25-0570JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 12 MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 13 Defendant. 14

15 Before the court is Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion to 16 dismiss this matter for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim. (MTD (Dkt. 17 # 14).) Throughout its brief, Microsoft cites this court’s dismissal order in Popa v. PSP 18 Group, LLC in support of its argument that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to bring 19 this case. (See, e.g., id. at 2 (quoting Popa v. PSP Grp. LLC, No. C23-0294, 2023 WL 20 7001456, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 24, 2023)); see also id. at 4, 8, 9, 10 (citing or quoting 21 Popa).) The court’s dismissal order in Popa, however, is currently on appeal to the Ninth 22 1 Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument on the matter on January 16, 2025. 2 See Popa v. PSP Grp. LLC, No. 24-14 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2025), Dkt. # 64.

3 Because the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Popa is likely to provide guidance on how 4 to analyze the standing issues in this case, it is the view of the court that a stay of this 5 action pending the resolution of the Popa appeal will further the interests of judicial 6 economy and minimize the risk of inconsistent rulings. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 7 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (holding that the power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent 8 in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time

9 and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”); Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 10 Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is 11 efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an 12 action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the 13 case.”). Therefore, the court ORDERS the parties to show cause why the court should

14 not stay this matter pending the issuance of the mandate in the Popa appeal. The parties’ 15 responses shall be no more than 1,200 words in length and shall be filed by no later than 16 July 1, 2025. Failure to respond to this order will be construed as consent to a stay. 17 Dated this 24th day of June, 2025. 18 A 19 20 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Penning v. Microsoft Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penning-v-microsoft-corporation-wawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack