Vanessa Miller v. Time Warner Cable Inc.

Filing 55

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court finds that a stay is appropriate in these circumstances and therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Case Pending Decision by JPML on Motion to Consolidate and Transfer 47 . It is ORDERED that this action is hereby removed from this Court's active caseload until further application by the parties or order of this Court. The parties are directed to file joint status reports reporting on the status of the pending motion before the JPML every 120 days or upon a decision from the JPML. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’ JS-6

Case No.

8:16-cv-00329-CAS(ASx)

Title

VANESSA MILLER V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

Present: The Honorable

Date

August 5, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY CASE
PENDING DECISION BY JPML ON MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE AND TRANSFER (Dkt. 47, filed July 11, 2016)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of August
8, 2016, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On February 24, 2016, plaintiff Vanessa Miller initiated this putative class action
against defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. (“TWC”). Dkt. 1. Plaintiff asserts a single
claim against TWC for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”),
47 U.S.C. § 227. Id. This action is one of eleven actions filed in recent months against
TWC for violations of the TCPA (“the TWC Actions”). On June 14, 2016, the plaintiffs
in one of the other TWC Actions, Fontes v. Time Warner Cable, Case No. 2:14-cv02060-CAS-CW, filed a motion with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (“JPML”) seeking to consolidate and transfer all of the TWC Actions,
including the instant action, to this district.
On June 27, 2016, defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss
plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt. 40. On July 5, 2016, plaintiff filed an opposition, Dkt. 44, and
on July 11, 2016, defendant filed a reply, Dkt. 46. On July 11, plaintiff filed a motion to
stay this case pending a decision by the JPML on the motion to consolidate and transfer
the TWC Actions to this district. Dkt. 47. Thereafter, on July 18, 2016, defendant filed
an opposition, Dkt. 51, and on July 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a reply, Dkt. 52. Having
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’ JS-6

Case No.

8:16-cv-00329-CAS(ASx)

Date

August 5, 2016

Title

VANESSA MILLER V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that it is appropriate to stay this case
pending a decision from the JPML
II.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff requests that the Court stay this case pending a decision by the JPML on
the motion to consolidate and transfer the TWC Actions to this district. A district court
has discretionary power to stay proceedings. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,
254 (1936). “This power to stay is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360
(C.D. Cal. 1997) (citations omitted). Moreover, courts routinely stay cases pending the
resolution of a motion before the JPML. See, e.g., Lyman v. Asbestos Defendants, 2007
WL 2972926 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2007); Sanborn v. Asbestos Corp., 2009 WL 195922
(N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2009). Here, the Court sees no reason to depart from the “majority of
courts [to] have concluded that it is . . . appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial
proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel.”
Rivers, 980 F. Supp., at 1362. Among other things, a stay in this case will preserve
judicial resources by avoiding duplicative litigation and potentially inconsistent rulings
from the courts overseeing the TWC Actions.
In its opposition, TWC does not contest that a stay will preserve judicial resources
and prevent inconsistent rulings. Nor does it contend that it will suffer any hardship from
a brief stay of these proceedings pending a ruling from the JPML. Instead, TWC argues
that there are jurisdictional issues that the Court should decide before exercising its
discretion to determine whether a stay is appropriate. Specifically, TWC contends that
the Court should decide: (a) whether to compel arbitration with regard to plaintiff’s claim
for TCPA damages; and (b) whether plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief pursuant to the
TCPA should be dismissed as moot. “The Ninth Circuit has made clear that courts
should address subject matter jurisdiction at the outset in the mine run of cases.” Mullin
v. Gen. Motors LLC, 2016 WL 94235, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2016) (citing Potter v.
Hughes, 546 F.3d 1051, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008)). Nonetheless, courts need not always
address subject matter jurisdiction at the outset of a case. See, e.g., Potter, 546 F.3d at
1061 (noting that “where the jurisdictional issue is difficult to determine” courts may
“reach other issues first”). And TWC has cited no authority which prohibits the Court
from staying this case pending a decision from the JPML simply because TWC has
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’ JS-6

Case No.

8:16-cv-00329-CAS(ASx)

Date

August 5, 2016

Title

VANESSA MILLER V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

challenged the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, TWC fails to explain why a
transferee court will be unable to decide the jurisdictional issues presented by this case
following a decision from the JPML. Accordingly, in the interests of judicial economy,
and particularly given that TWC has not identified any prejudice it will suffer from a stay
of these proceedings, the Court finds that it is appropriate to briefly stay these
proceedings pending a decision from the JPML. See also Lyman, 2007 WL 2972926, at
*3 (granting a motion to stay pending resolution of a motion to consolidate and transfer
cases before the JPML “because a stay [would] likely preserve judicial resources by
preventing a duplication of proceedings” and “because the plaintiffs [had] not
persuasively identified any hardship resulting from such a stay”).
The Court, therefore, GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to stay.1

1

TWC argues, in the alternative, that the Court should stay this case, not pending
the resolution of the motion before the JPML, but rather pending the resolution of the
appeal in ACA Int’l v. FCC, 15-1211 (D.C. Cir. 2015), currently pending before the
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In one of the other TWC Actions, Fontes
v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-2060-CAS-CW, this Court recently
granted a stay pending the resolution of the appeal in ACA Int’l. Nonetheless, the Court
finds that, in this case, it is more appropriate to grant a stay pending the resolution of the
motion before the JPML. As TWC notes, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia will likely decide the ACA Int’l appeal in the relatively near future; however,
the JPML is not scheduled to hear argument on the pending motion to consolidate and
transfer the TWC Actions until September 29, 2016, at the earliest. Accordingly, it
seems likely that, by the time the JPML resolves the motion to consolidate and transfer
the TWC Actions, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will have also
resolved the ACA Int’l appeal. If, once the JPML has rendered a decision on the motion
to consolidate and transfer the TWC Actions, the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia has still not resolved the ACA Int’l appeal, TWC may renew its request for a
stay to the extent it still believes such a stay is necessary.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’ JS-6

Case No.

8:16-cv-00329-CAS(ASx)

Title

VANESSA MILLER V. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

III.

Date

August 5, 2016

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court finds that a stay is appropriate in these
circumstances and therefore GRANTS plaintiff’s motion. It is ORDERED that this
action is hereby removed from this Court’s active caseload until further application by
the parties or order of this Court. The parties are directed to file joint status reports
reporting on the status of the pending motion before the JPML every 120 days or upon a
decision from the JPML.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 4 of 4