Wilson v. Rater8, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 2, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01515
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ROBERT WILSON, Case No.: 20-cv-1515-DMS-LL

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 v. STAY 13 RATER8, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; SAN DIEGO 14 ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES 15 MEDICAL GROUP, a California Corporation; LARRY D. DODGE, M.D., 16 INC., a California Corporation, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to stay this action pending a decision from 20 the United States Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, et al., Case No. 19-511 21 (“Duguid”). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is granted. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed this class action against Defendants, alleging a 25 violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.) (“TCPA”), 26 and California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”). (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) Plaintiff 27 alleges that immediately after seeing Larry D. Dodge, M.D. for an independent medical 28 examination, Plaintiff wrongfully received a text message asking him to complete a survey 1 regarding his visit with Dr. Dodge. (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants used an 2 Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”) to send the text message without 3 Plaintiff’s consent. (Id. at ¶¶ 17, 18.) ` 4 On October 27, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to stay proceedings pending a 5 decision from the Supreme Court in Duguid. (ECF No. 11.) Defendants claim the 6 forthcoming decision could have a significant and potentially dispositive impact on this 7 case because the Supreme Court may determine what technology qualifies as an ATDS, 8 and thus whether Plaintiff’s claims under the TCPA are viable. (Id. at 1.) 9 On November 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF 10 No. 12.) In his FAC, Plaintiff asserts an additional state law claim for violations of the 11 Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Civil Code § 56, et seq. (CMIA). (Id. at ¶ 2.) 12 Plaintiff also named Maneesh Bawa, M.D. as an additional defendant. (Id.) On November 13 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to stay, (ECF No. 15), and 14 Defendants filed a reply brief on November 27, 2020. 1 (ECF No. 16.) 15 II. 16 LEGAL STANDARD 17 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 18 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 19 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). 20 “How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing 21 interests and maintain an even balance.” Id. at 254-55 (citations omitted). 22 These interests include (1) “the possible damage which may result from granting a 23 stay,” (2) “the hardship a party may suffer if the case is allowed to go forward,” and (3) 24 “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff filed objections to a declaration submitted by Defendants’ counsel in support of the present motion. (ECF No. 18.) The Court does not rely on the statements contained in the declaration, and 28 1 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer 2 v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 3 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). Further, a district court may stay a case “pending resolution 4 of independent proceedings which bear upon the case,” even if those proceedings are not 5 “necessarily controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., 6 Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979). “[S]tays should not be indefinite in nature.” 7 Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 8 2007). For a stay to be granted, it must “[appear] likely the other proceedings will be 9 concluded within a reasonable time.” Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. 10 III. 11 DISCUSSION 12 Judicial efficiency favors a stay of these proceedings. In assessing whether to stay 13 a case, a court must consider “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 14 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected 15 to result from a stay.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1110. The Supreme Court’s decision in Duguid 16 will clarify a core legal issue in this action, namely “[w]hether the definition of ATDS in 17 the TCPA encompasses any device that can ‘store’ and ‘automatically dial’ telephone 18 numbers, even if the device does not ‘us[e] a random or sequential number generator.’” 19 See Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 2019 WL 5390116 (U.S.), at *ii (petitioning Supreme 20 Court); Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511, 2020 WL 3865252, at *1 (U.S. July 9, 2020) 21 (granting writ). Here, as noted, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unlawfully used an ATDS 22 to message him without his express written consent. As Defendants argue, the adjudication 23 of this issue may well determine whether the device used to message Plaintiff constitutes 24 an ATDS under the TCPA. 2 (Mot. to Stay at 25; Reply Brief at 2). Allowing this case to 25 26 27 2 Plaintiff argues that his CMIA claims will remain regardless of the outcome in Duguid. (Opp. to Mot. at 1, 7-8). However, these claims arise out of state law, and Plaintiff does not plead diversity jurisdiction 28 1 proceed pending a decision in Duguid could be wasteful and result in duplicative 2 proceedings. Additionally, in the absence of a stay, the parties would expend resources 3 conducting discovery. The burden of discovery could be reduced by the outcome of 4 Duguid. While “being required to defend a suit, without more, does not constitute a ‘clear 5 case of hardship or inequity,’” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112, the burden of litigating an issue 6 that may be mooted adds to that potential hardship. Defendants’ interest in avoiding 7 potentially unnecessary litigation and discovery is consistent with the Court’s interest in 8 preserving judicial resources and efficiency. These factors, therefore, weigh in favor of 9 staying the case. 10 By contrast, the risk of prejudice to Plaintiff is minimal. The duration of the stay 11 requested by Defendants is reasonably determinate. Under the Supreme Court’s customary 12 practice, a decision in Duguid will likely be issued by the end of this summer. 13 Plaintiff argues that a stay will prejudice his case because evidence may become 14 unavailable pending the decision in Duguid. (Opp. to Mot. to Stay at 18-19.) However, 15 even crediting Plaintiff’s assertion that certain third-party carriers retain call and text 16 message logs for only 18 to 24 months, the issuance of a stay in this matter should not 17 result in loss of such evidence. Plaintiff alleges that he received the subject messages on 18 June 23, 2020. (FAC ¶30). If the Supreme Court issues its decision in Duguid as late as 19 August 2021, Plaintiff should still have several months to initiate discovery and obtain the 20 relevant text logs before they become unavailable. The possibility that a stay would limit 21 Plaintiff’s access to this evidence is speculative, and largely undermined by Plaintiff’s own 22 projections. Plaintiff could also move the Court to lift the stay and pursue targeted 23 discovery in the event a ruling by the Supreme Court is delayed. Considering the interests 24 of justice, competing equities and likely limited duration of the stay, the Court is persuaded 25 that a stay of this case is appropriate. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion is granted and all proceedings 4 in this matter will be stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Duguid. The parties 5 will notify the Court within 14 days after the Supreme Court issues its decision. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: February 2, 2021 8 _____________________________

9 Honorable Dana M. Sabraw

United States Chief District Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28