Morris v. SolarCity Corp.

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Richard Seeborg denying 25 Motion to Stay. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2016)

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.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

12
13

SOLARCITY CORP.,
Defendant.

14
15
16

Defendant SolarCity Corp. moves for either (1) a stay of discovery pending any

17

determination that plaintiff has stated a viable claim, or (2) a stay of the entire action pending a

18

Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015), which involves the

19

question of whether a claim for statutory damages gives rise to Article III standing in the absence

20

of actual damages. The motion has been submitted without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local

21

Rule 7-1(b), and will be denied.

22

Although a court generally has discretion to impose stays of the nature requested,

23

SolarCity has not shown that discretion should be exercised to grant such relief in the

24

circumstances here. SolarCity argues that it should not be put to the burden and expense of

25

responding to written discovery where, it believes, it may be able to obtain dismissal of the

26

complaint, without leave to amend, through an anticipated motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the

27

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SolarCity, however, has not advanced a basis for distinguishing

28

this case from the vast majority of those in which defendants contend plaintiffs have not stated a

1

claim and have little chance of ever doing so. Yet, other than in actions governed by the Private

2

Securities Litigation Reform Act, the general rule is that the pendency of a motion to dismiss does

3

not stay discovery.

4

Similarly, the possibility that a future decision in Spokeo will be instructive on what

5

plaintiffs must plead to go forward does not support staying the action at this juncture. The

6

timing, the potential scope, and the applicability of that ruling all remain uncertain. Accordingly,

7

the stay motion is denied.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: February 17, 2016
______________________________________
_
_______________________
_
_ ________ _________________
_ _
___
__
_
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
CASE NO. 15-cv-05107-RS

28
2