Singh v. Freedom Mortgage Corp. ( 2020 )

1 Andrew M. Hutchison (SBN 289315) COZEN O’CONNOR 2 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, California 94104 3 Telephone: 415.644.0914 Facsimile: 415.644.0978 4 ahutchison@cozen.com 5 Michael W. McTigue Jr. (pro hac vice) Meredith C. Slawe (pro hac vice) 6 Daniel E. Brewer (pro hac vice) COZEN O’CONNOR 7 One Liberty Place, Suite 2800 1650 Market Street 8 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 Telephone: 215.665.2000 9 Facsimile: 215.665.2013 mmctigue@cozen.com 10 mslawe@cozen.com dbrewer@cozen.com 11 Attorneys for Defendant 12 Freedom Mortgage Corporation 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 MONY SINGH, individually and on behalf of all Case No. 2:20-cv-01676-JAM-CKD others similarly situated, 17 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY Plaintiff, CASE PENDING UNITED STATES 18 SUPREME COURT ACTION [L.R. 143] vs. 19 FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION; 20 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 21 Defendant(s). 22 23 Pursuant to Local Rule 143 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 24 California, Plaintiff Mony Singh (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation 25 (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”) stipulate and respectfully request a stay of all proceedings 26 in this case pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 27 19-511, cert. granted, 2020 WL 3865252 (July 9, 2020) (“Duguid”). 28 1 RECITALS 2 WHEREAS, on August 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant for alleged 3 violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”) and the 4 Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq. 5 WHEREAS, in connection with his TCPA claims, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used an 6 automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to place telephone calls to his cellular telephone 7 number. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16. 8 WHEREAS, Defendant denies that an ATDS was used to call Plaintiff. 9 WHEREAS, on July 9, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Duguid to 10 resolve a deep circuit split regarding the interpretation of the term ATDS under the TCPA. 11 Specifically, it will resolve “[w]hether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device 12 that can ‘store’ and ‘automatically dial’ telephone numbers, even if the device does not ‘us[e] a random 13 or sequential number generator.’” Question Presented, Duguid, No. 19-511. 14 WHEREAS, on September 4, 2020, Facebook filed its opening brief and the United States 15 filed a brief in support of Facebook that seeks reversal of the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the term 16 ATDS. 17 WHEREAS, Respondent’s brief is due on October 16, 2020. 18 WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has scheduled argument in Duguid to take place 19 on December 8, 2020. 20 WHEREAS, the definition of an ATDS under the TCPA is a central, disputed, and potentially 21 dispositive issue in this action. 22 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a stay of all proceedings in this matter is appropriate until 23 the United States Supreme Court decides Duguid. 24 WHEREAS, the proposed stay will be of limited duration with a decision expected to be issued 25 by the United States Supreme Court in the first quarter of 2021. 26 WHEREAS, the proposed stay will promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary expense for 27 the Parties and the Court, and will not prejudice either party. 28 WHEREAS, the proposed stay is for good cause and is not made for an improper purpose. 1 WHEREAS, courts in this district have granted requests for stays in TCPA cases pending 2 Duguid. See Aujuard v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 18-1130, Dkt. No. 32 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3 6, 2020) (Nunley, J.); Hoffman v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 19-1935, Dkt. No. 22 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 4 2020) (Mendez, J.).1 5 STIPULATION 6 Based upon the above recitals, the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate 7 as follows: 8 1. All proceedings in this action are stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s 9 decision in Duguid. 10 2. The Parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report within fourteen (14) days 11 of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Duguid. 12 3. The stay may be lifted at any time by order of the Court. 13 14 15 16 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 1 The Ninth Circuit and numerous other district courts within this circuit have also stayed TCPA actions pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Duguid. See Meier v. Allied Interstate LLC, No. 20- 19 55286, Dkt. No. 12 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020); Lamkin v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 19- 20 16947, Dkt. No. 45 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2020); Babare v. Sigue Corp., No. 20-0894, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180262 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 2020; Canady v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp., No. 19-4738, 21 2020 WL 5249263 (D. Ariz. Sept. 3, 2020); Veytia v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., No. 20-0341, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161588 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2020); Jensen v. Roto-Rooter Servs. Co., No. 20-0223, 22 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151256 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2020); Hoagland v. Axos Bank, No. 19-0750, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132831 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2020); In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., No. 11- 23 2295, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132312 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2020); Rodriguez v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., No. 19-2266, Dkt. No. 23 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2020); Blower v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., 24 No. 19-02270, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130505 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2020); Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16-0751, Dkt. No. 129 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2020); Whattoff-Hall v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., 25 No. 19- 02267, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130375 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2020); Mahnke v. Capital One, NA, 26 No. 20-0545, Dkt. No. 18 (D. Nev. July 21, 2020); Daniel v. Lennar Corp., No. 19-0452, Dkt. No. 45 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2020); Meyers v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-0062, Dkt. No. 57 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 27 2020); May v. Whatsapp, Inc., No. 20-0659, Dkt. No. 20 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2020); Young v. Bank of Am. N.A., No. 19-3867, Dkt. No. 31 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2020); Rossano v. Fashion Mktg. & 28 Merchandising Grp. Inc., No. 19-10523, Dkt. No. 31 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2020); Sensibaugh v. EF 1 Dated: October 14, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 2 3 By: /s/ Todd M. Friedman Todd M. Friedman 4 Meghan E. George Adrian R. Bacon 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 Mony Singh 7 8 Dated: October 14, 2020 COZEN O’CONNOR 9 By: /s/ Andrew M. Hutchison Andrew M. Hutchison 10 Michael W. McTigue Jr. (pro hac vice) 11 Meredith C. Slawe (pro hac vice) Daniel E. Brewer (pro hac vice) 12 Attorneys for Defendant 13 Freedom Mortgage Corporation 14 15 ORDER 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 DATED: October 15, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez 19 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28