Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC

Filing 184

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 177 Motion to Stay (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SERGIO L. RAMIREZ,

Case No. 12-cv-00632-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY ACTION

9
10

TRANS UNION, LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 183

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

In this certified class action, Defendant Trans Union, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to stay the

14

case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. (Dkt. No.

15

183.) Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions and the arguments of counsel at the hearing

16

held on June, 18 2015, Defendant’s motion to stay is GRANTED.

17
18

BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff Sergio L. Ramirez filed this class action against Defendant

19

TransUnion, bringing three causes of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15

20

U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and three under its state counterpart, the California Consumer Credit

21

Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1785.1 et seq. On July 24, 2014, the

22

Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to certify class. (Dkt. No. 140.) The

23

Court certified a damages and injunctive relief class under FCRA, but only certified an injunctive

24

relief class under CCRAA. The Court declined to certify the CCRAA statutory damages class

25

because California law holds that CCRAA claims require a plaintiff to show actual harm. See

26

Trujillo v. First American Registry, Inc., 157 Cal. App. 4th 628, 637-38 (2008). In contrast,

27

certification under FCRA was appropriate because a FCRA “cause of action does not require proof

28

of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the statutory right without suffering actual

1

damages.” (Dkt. No. 140 at 16:8-10 (quoting Spokeo, 742 F.3d 409, 413 (9th Cir. 2014), cert.

2

granted, 82 U.S.L.W. 3689 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2015) (No. 13-1339)).)

3

Following distribution of notice to the class, the Supreme Court granted the petition for

4

writ of certiorari in Spokeo. Defendant now moves to stay the action pending the Supreme Court’s

5

decision in Spokeo, asserting that the orderly course of justice and balance of hardships favor the

6

imposition of a stay.

7

DISCUSSION

8

“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

9

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In deciding whether

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

to grant a stay, a court may weigh the following: (1) the possible damage which may result from

12

the granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go

13

forward; and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating

14

of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc.

15

v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (internal citations and quotation omitted). However,

16

“[o]nly in rare circumstances will a litigant in one case be compelled to stand aside while a litigant

17

in another settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. A

18

district court’s decision to grant or deny a Landis stay is a matter of discretion. See Dependable

19

Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). The proponent of

20

a stay has the burden of proving such a discretionary stay is justified. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.

21

681, 708 (1997).

22

Here, Defendant moves to stay the action pending the Supreme Court’s review of the Ninth

23

Circuit’s decision in Spokeo upon which the Court squarely relied in granting class certification of

24

the FCRA class. Given that the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo may directly impact the

25

Court’s class certification ruling, the Landis factors weigh strongly in favor of staying this action

26

pending the Spokeo decision. The possible prejudice to Plaintiff that will result from a stay is

27

minimal, as the Spokeo decision will likely be issued within a year per the Supreme Court’s

28

customary practice. Further, as explained by Defendant, and not disputed by Plaintiff, Defendant
2

1

has modified the conduct about which Plaintiff complains so there is no need to proceed with trial

2

to obtain immediate injunctive relief and staunch the harm. Moreover, Defendant has agreed to

3

bear the cost of further notice to the class advising them of the stay. In contrast to the lack of

4

prejudice to Plaintiff and the class, in light of Spokeo’s potential impact on the class certification

5

order, Defendant faces the risk of unnecessary proceedings and expenses if the case is not stayed:

6

given the current schedule, absent a stay this case will be resolved through either trial or summary

7

judgment prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

8

CONCLUSION

9

Defendant’s motion to stay this action pending a decision in Spokeo is GRANTED.

10

Plaintiff shall file a motion to lift the stay once the Supreme Court issues its decision.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This Order disposes of Docket No. 183.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: June 22, 2015

14
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3