Winters v. Loan Depot LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 23, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01290
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Richard Winters, Jr., ) No. CV-20-01290-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Loan Depot LLC, ) 12 ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 )

15 Before the Court is Defendant LoanDepot.com LLC (“LoanDepot”)’s Motion to 16 Stay Discovery. (Doc. 31) Defendant moves to stay discovery until the Court rules on its 17 pending Motion to Strike Class Allegations (Doc. 29); Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or in the Alternative, to Stay Pending the Ninth Circuit’s 19 Review of Perez (Doc. 28); and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss Non-Arizona 20 Class Members’ Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (Doc. 30) The Motion to Stay 21 Discovery is ripe for review. (Docs. 32, 35) For the following reasons, the Motion (Doc. 22 31) will be granted. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 This case was brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) on 25 June 30, 2020. (Doc. 1 at 1) Plaintiff Richard Winters, Jr. has alleged Defendant LoanDepot 26 contacted or attempted to contact him on his cellular phone by prerecorded messaging and 27 without “prior express consent.” (Doc. 27 at ¶¶7–12) The case was previously stayed 28 pending resolution of the Supreme Court case Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. (Doc. 23 at 3) 1 Following the decision, the Court lifted the stay (Doc. 26), Plaintiff filed a Second 2 Amended Complaint (Doc 27), and Defendant filed the four currently pending motions. 3 (Docs. 28, 29, 30, 31) Defendant filed two motions to dismiss (Docs. 28, 30), one motion 4 to strike class allegations (Doc. 29), and the instant motion to stay discovery. (Doc. 31) 5 One motion to dismiss is based on subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim 6 (Doc. 28) and the other is based on personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 30) 7 There has not yet been a Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 16 conference or scheduling order. 8 Discovery has not yet begun. (Doc. 31 at 2) Defendant now seeks to stay discovery pending 9 the Court’s ruling on its three other motions. (Docs. 28, 29, 30) Plaintiff opposes the motion 10 to stay. (Doc. 32 at 1) 11 II. LEGAL STANDARD 12 It is well established that a court has inherent power to control its docket and may 13 stay discovery or the decision of a pending motion. See Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 14 248, 254 (1936), Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988), Prostrollo v. 15 City of Scottsdale, No. CV-12-1815-PHX-SMM, 2013 WL 11394250, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 16 9, 2013). 17 Courts may stay discovery for many reasons, including furthering efficiency for 18 itself and the litigants. Little, 863 F.2d at 685. Discovery may also be stayed pending 19 rulings on dispositive or potentially dispositive motions. See Lazar v. Charles Schwab & 20 Co. Inc., No. CV-14-01511-PHX-DLR, 2014 WL 12551210, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 21 2014). 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 Defendant argues resolution of pending motions will either dispose of or 24 “substantially narrow” the claims in this case. (Doc. 31 at 2) Defendant further argues 25 Plaintiff will not suffer harm or prejudice because of the stay, and rather, Defendant would 26 be burdened by moving forth with discovery when the pending motions may render it moot. 27 (Doc. 31 at 2) Plaintiff responds that the motion to stay is prohibited by the undersigned 28 Judge’s standing order, that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a stay, and that the pending 1 motions are not likely to succeed and thus discovery should move forward now. (Doc. 32 2 at 5–10) 3 As a preliminary matter, the standing order referenced by Plaintiff prohibits the 4 filing of motions pertaining to discovery disputes without leave of court.1 The instant 5 motion is not a discovery dispute motion; it is a motion to stay that happens to affect 6 discovery. Although the Court appreciates Plaintiff’s creative argument, it is unavailing. 7 Second, the Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments concerning prejudice due to potential 8 destruction of evidence equally unavailing. Discovery has not yet begun, and the Court has 9 not yet issued a scheduling order; both facts weighing in favor of granting the stay. See 10 Verco Decking, Inc. v. Consol. Sys., Inc., No. CV-11-2516-PHX-GMS, 2012 WL 11 12827398, at *5 (D. Ariz. Oct. 29, 2012) (finding the fact that the case was at an early stage 12 went in favor of granting a stay); Medicis Pharm. Corp. v. Upsher-Smith Lab’ys, Inc., 486 13 F. Supp. 2d 990, 994 (D. Ariz. 2007) (internal citations omitted) (granting a stay when 14 parties had not yet conducted “significant discovery”). 15 Finally, the pending motions to dismiss are brought pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), 16 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). See supra I. “Staying discovery pending resolution of a motion to 17 dismiss is permissible when the motion raises only legal issues.” Lazar, 2014 WL 18 12551210 at *1 (citing Jarvis v. Regan, 833 F.2d 149, 155 (9th Cir. 1987); Rae v. Union 19 Bank, 725 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1984)). This Court further stated that that if a pending 20 motion is “potentially dispositive of the entire case, and if the motion is not dependent on 21 additional discovery, a stay is justified.” Lazar, 2014 WL 12551210 at *1 (emphasis 22 added). Such a stay “furthers the goal of efficiency for the courts and litigants.” Id. (citing 23 Mlejnecky v. Olypus Imaging America, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-02630-JAM-KJN, 2011 WL 24 489743 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011) (quoting Little, 863 F.2d at 685)). 25 The Court in Rae v. Union Bank explained that when a 12(b) motion does not raise

26 27 STATES1 Ho Dn I. S TS Rte ICve Tn P. C OL Uog Ra Tn , S Ft Oan Rd ard T HR Eu le 1 D6 I STC Ra Is Ce T Ma Ona F gem Aen Rt I ZO ONrd Ae r, U 1,N ITE 4D , https://www.azd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judge-orders/SPL%20Case%20Mgmt% 28 20Order%20%28after%20May%201%202017%29.pdf. 1 | factual issues, discovery is not necessary. 725 F.2d at 481. Here, the first motion to dismiss 2| is based on issues of subject matter jurisdiction that turn on the Ninth Circuit’s 3] interpretation of a recent Supreme Court holding. (Doc. 28 at 6) These are entirely legal questions and the Court would not be aided by facts subject to discovery in resolving them. Furthermore, the motion to dismiss (Doc. 28) is one that, if granted, would dispose of the 6 | case in its entirety, rendering the other two pending motions moot. 7 Because the case is still in its infancy and the Court need not resolve any factual 8 | issues when deciding the pending motion to dismiss, a stay is appropriate and accomplishes 9 | the goal of furthering efficiency. 10 Therefore, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (Doc. 31) is granted. 12 Dated this 23rd day of June, 2021. 13

15 United States District kadge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28