Gusman v. Comcast Corporation
Filing
69
ORDER LIFTING STAY and Setting Status Conference. Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/2/2015 at 1:00 PM before Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 9/24/2015. (srm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES GUSMAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
vs.
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 13CV1049-GPC(DHB)
ORDER LIFTING STAY AND
SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE
COMCAST CORPORATION,
Defendant.
On May 21, 2014, the Court stayed the case under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine in order to allow the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to resolve
an issue pending before it that is also an issue in this case. (Dkt. No. 58.) The relevant
issue is whether “a caller making a call subject to the TCPA to a number reassigned
from the consumer who gave consent for the call to a new consumer is liable for
violating the TCPA.” In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7999 (2015). On September 15,
2015, the parties filed a fourth joint status report. (Dkt. No. 68.) In the status report,
the parties noted that on July 10, 2015, the FCC released a Declaratory Ruling and
Order that addressed the issue in this case. (Dkt. No. 68-1, Ex. A.)
The parties dispute whether the stay should be lifted after the FCC’s ruling.
Defendant argues that the FCC’s ruling does not constitute final resolution on the issue
in this case because since the ruling, about nine companies have filed petitions with the
-1-
[13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]
1 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking review of the
2 FCC’s ruling on the issue of liability for calls to reassigned cell phone numbers and the
3 meaning of “called parties.” Plaintiff contends that the FCC has ruled on the issue that
4 was subject to the Court’s stay. In addition, he should not have to wait years before a
5 decision is made by the appellate court.
6
7
Discussion
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its
8 power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing
9 Landis v. N. Am.Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In determining whether to grant a
10 motion to stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or
11 refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098,
12 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). District courts also have discretion to lift a stay of litigation. See
13 Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64, 74 (D.D.C. 2002) (“The
14 same court that imposes a stay of litigation has the inherent power and discretion to lift
15 the stay.”). “When circumstances have changed such that the court's reasons for
16 imposing the stay no longer exist or are inappropriate, the court may lift the stay.” Id.
17 In determining whether the motion to lift the stay was ripe, the court in Canady
18 evaluated both “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the
19 parties of withholding court consideration. Id. at 75.
20
Here, the case was stayed in order to allow the FCC to rule on an issue that is
21 currently at issue in this case. On July 10, 2015, the FCC ruled on the issue and the
22 reason for imposing the stay no longer exists. In addition, a ruling by the D.C. Circuit
23 may take years and would impose a hardship on the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court
24 finds it appropriate to lift the stay. The Court LIFTS the stay in this case, and sets a
25 / / / /
26 / / / /
27 / / / /
28 / / / /
-2-
[13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]
1 telephonic status conference on October 2, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff shall initiate
2 and coordinate the conference call.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5 DATED: September 24, 2015
6
7
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
[13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?