Morris v. SolarCity Corp.

Filing 32

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS, STRIKE, AND STAY, AND RE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 2/9/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GEORGE MORRIS,

Case No. 15-cv-05107-RS

Plaintiff,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13

SOLARCITY CORP.,

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS,
STRIKE, AND STAY, AND RE MOTION
TO SHORTEN TIME

Defendant.
14
15
16

Defendant SolarCity Corp. has filed a motion seeking (1) dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of

17

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) striking of the class action allegations, (3) a stay of

18

discovery pending any determination that plaintiff has stated a viable claim, or (4) a stay of the

19

entire action pending a Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015),

20

which involves the question of whether a claim for statutory damages gives rise to Article III

21

standing in the absence of actual damages. In lieu of opposing the motion the prongs of the

22

motion seeking dismissal or striking of the class allegations, plaintiff has filed an amended

23

complaint. Neither party, therefore, contemplates that portion of the motion will go forward, and

24

SolarCity has indicated it will file a new motion to dismiss and strike. Accordingly, the portion of

25

the motion seeking dismissal or to strike the class allegations is denied, without prejudice to

26

SolarCity’s right to bring a new motion, based on some or all of the same arguments, directed at

27

the First Amended Complaint.

28

Plaintiff has filed written opposition to the prongs of the motion seeking a stay of

1

discovery or a stay of the entire action. SolarCity’s reply brief on those issues is not due until

2

February 16, 2016, and the motion is not set to be heard until March 17, 2016. Because plaintiff

3

has served certain discovery that requires responses in the interim, SolarCity has filed a motion

4

under Civil Local Rule 6-3 to shorten time for hearing the motion to stay. Good cause appearing,

5

it is ordered as follows:

6

1. SolarCity shall file its reply brief regarding a stay of discovery pending any

7

determination that plaintiff has stated a viable claim, or stay of the entire action pending a decision

8

in Spokeo, as scheduled, on or before February 16, 2016.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), those issues will then be submitted for decision
without oral argument, and the hearing set for March 17, 2016 is vacated.
3. SolarCity is hereby relieved from the obligation to respond to the pending discovery

12

requests until seven days after any ruling denying both the motion for a discovery stay and a stay

13

of the entire action.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: February 9, 2016
______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.

2

15-cv-05107-RS