Declements v. Americana Holdings LLC ( 2020 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Daniel Declements, No. CV-20-00166-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Americana Holdings LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 At issue is Americana Arizona LLC’s (“Americana Arizona”) motion to stay this 17 case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511 (Jan. 18 9, 2020) (“Facebook”), which concerns the definition of an automatic telephone dialing 19 system (“ATDS”) and likely will be issued sometime during the Supreme Court’s 20 upcoming term. (Docs. 38, 41, 42.) In determining whether to grant a stay, the Court 21 balances the (1) harm a stay would cause the non-moving party, (2) the harm the moving 22 party would suffer in the absence of a stay, and (3) interests of judicial economy. Lockyer 23 v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). On balance, the three stay factors 24 favor a stay.1 25 First, a stay will not prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s suit is based on receipt of a single 26 message; he is no longer receiving automated texts and he seeks monetary damages, not 27 1 Americana Arizona’s request for oral argument is denied because the issues are adequately briefed and oral argument will not help the Court resolve the motion. See Fed. 28 R. Civ. P. 78(b); LRCiv. 7.2(f); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). 1 injunctive relief. Although a stay might delay the receipt of monetary damages should 2 Plaintiff ultimately succeed in this litigation, such a delay does not constitute an irreparable 3 injury. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268-69 (9th Cir. 1962). The Court is also 4 unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s contentions that a stay risks the loss of evidence. Plaintiff cites 5 no evidence to support his concerns, Americana Arizona is aware of its preservation 6 obligations, and Plaintiff may put third parties on notice to preserve evidence as well. See 7 Canady v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp., No. CV-19-04738-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 8 5249263, at *4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 3, 2020) (explaining that the defendant’s awareness of its 9 evidence- preservation obligations in conjunction with the fact that the stay would not be 10 indefinite “underscores that there is little risk of harm in instituting a stay”). Further, the 11 stay will be relatively brief. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in 12 Facebook next week—on December 8, 2020—and is likely to issue a decision before the 13 end of the upcoming term. Even in the absence of a stay, there is no guarantee that 14 Plaintiff’s claims would be resolved before the Supreme Court issues its decision. 15 Second, absent a stay, Americana Arizona will incur costs related to class 16 certification briefing, completing discovery, briefing dispositive motions, and potentially 17 preparing for trial, all while the Supreme Court considers an issue that could significantly 18 narrow or even eliminate this case. 19 Lastly, a stay will promote judicial efficiency. Particularly, the “Supreme Court’s 20 resolution of Facebook has the potential to significantly narrow the issues involved in this 21 case, including the scope of discovery as to [Plaintiff’s] ATDS allegations and the scope 22 of [Plaintiff’s] class-certification request.” Canady, 2020 WL 5249263, at *4. It is 23 apparent that Facebook will be relevant and potentially dispositive of Plaintiff’s claim, 24 which involves the use of a device that did not use a random or sequential number 25 generator. Staying this case at this juncture will also “avoid exhausting judicial resources 26 to decide [substantive motions] which may prove fruitless.” Id. Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to stay (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. This 28 matter, including all remaining deadlines and hearings, is STAYED pending the Supreme 1 || Court’s decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511 (Jan. 9, 2020). The parties shall || jointly notify the Court in writing of the Supreme Court’s decision within five days of its □□ issuance. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may move to lift the stay if the 5 || Supreme Court does not issue a decision by the end of the upcoming term. 6 Dated this 4th day of December, 2020. 7 8 : Las Ue 10 Ay 11 Ubited States Dictric Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-