Singh v. Freedom Mortgage Corp.

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/15/2020 STAYING all proceedings in this action pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Duguid. The Parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report within 14 days of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Duguid. The stay may be lifted at any time by order of the Court. (Tupolo, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Andrew M. Hutchison (SBN 289315)
COZEN O’CONNOR
101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.644.0978
[e-mail]
Michael W. McTigue Jr. (pro hac vice)
Meredith C. Slawe (pro hac vice)
Daniel E. Brewer (pro hac vice)
COZEN O’CONNOR
One Liberty Place, Suite 2800
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 215.665.2013
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

11
12

Attorneys for Defendant
Freedom Mortgage Corporation

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

MONY SINGH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

17
18
19
20
21

Case No. 2:20-cv-01676-JAM-CKD
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY
CASE PENDING UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT ACTION [L.R. 143]

Plaintiff,
vs.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
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
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE PENDING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ACTION

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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

on December 8, 2020.
WHEREAS, the definition of an ATDS under the TCPA is a central, disputed, and potentially
dispositive issue in this action.
WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a stay of all proceedings in this matter is appropriate until
the United States Supreme Court decides Duguid.
WHEREAS, the proposed stay will be of limited duration with a decision expected to be issued
by the United States Supreme Court in the first quarter of 2021.
WHEREAS, the proposed stay will promote judicial economy, avoid unnecessary expense for
the Parties and the Court, and will not prejudice either party.
WHEREAS, the proposed stay is for good cause and is not made for an improper purpose.
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE PENDING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ACTION

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
7

Based upon the above recitals, the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate
as follows:

8
9

1.

decision in Duguid.

10
11

All proceedings in this action are stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s

2.

The Parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report within fourteen (14) days

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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Respectfully submitted,
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. 2055286, Dkt. No. 12 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020); Lamkin v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 1916947, 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,
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,
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. 112295, 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.,
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.,
No. 19- 02267, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130375 (S.D. Cal. July 23, 2020); Mahnke v. Capital One, NA,
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,
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. &
Merchandising Grp. Inc., No. 19-10523, Dkt. No. 31 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2020); Sensibaugh v. EF
Educ. First, Inc., No. 20-1068, Dkt. No. 30 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2020).
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE PENDING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ACTION

1
2

Dated: October 14, 2020

LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
By:

3
4

/s/ Todd M. Friedman
Todd M. Friedman
Meghan E. George
Adrian R. Bacon

5
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Mony Singh

6
7
8

Dated: October 14, 2020

9

COZEN O’CONNOR
By:

10
11

/s/ Andrew M. Hutchison
Andrew M. Hutchison
Michael W. McTigue Jr. (pro hac vice)
Meredith C. Slawe (pro hac vice)
Daniel E. Brewer (pro hac vice)

12
Attorneys for Defendant
Freedom Mortgage Corporation

13
14
15

ORDER
16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2020

/s/ John A. Mendez
THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO STAY CASE PENDING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ACTION