Hartranft v. Encore Capital Group, Inc et al

Filing 46

ORDER Granting 29 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal in Appeal No. 19-56390. Case stayed until a decision is reached in the Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 19-56390, In re: Sean Hartranft v. Midland Funding, LLC. Counsel for Plaintiff shall notify this Court within seven days of a decision in its appeal. All further proceedings in this case are stayed. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/30/2020. (mme)(jrd)

Case 3:18-cv-01187-BEN-RBB Document 46 Filed 07/30/20 PageID.606 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

SEAN HARTRANFT,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

vs.
ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., a
Delaware Corporation,

Case No.: 18-cv-1187-BEN (RBB)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING
APPEAL IN APPEAL NO. 19-56390
[Dkt. No. 28]

Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

After filing this case, Plaintiff moved to intervene in Multidistrict Litigation
(“MDL”) proceedings being managed by the Honorable Michael M. Anello in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 11-MD-2286-MMA
(MDD). Plaintiff’s motion to intervene was denied and Plaintiff appealed. The appeal
is now fully briefed and awaiting oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 19-56390.
At the same time, the parties in the MDL proceedings before Judge Anello have
asked for a stay pending the decision in a case recently granted certiorari by the U.S.
Supreme Court concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). See
Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, Supreme Court Dkt. No. 19-511, cert. granted (July 9, 2020).
The TCPA is a basis for the Plaintiff’s claims in both the MDL cases and this case.

Courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings incident to their power to
control their own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Stays are
-1-

Case 3:18-cv-01187-BEN-RBB Document 46 Filed 07/30/20 PageID.607 Page 2 of 2

1

often granted when the resolution of another action bears upon the case, because a

2

stay is most “efficient for [the court’s] own docket and the fairest course for the

3

parties[.]” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir.

4

1979); see also Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 253 (1936) (holding

5

that a stay may be warranted where the resolution of other litigation may “assist in

6

the determination of the questions of law involved.”).

7

To conserve judicial resources and in the exercise of its discretion, the Court

8

hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the immediate action and proceedings until

9

a decision is reached in the Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 19-56390, In re: Sean Hartranft

10

v. Midland Funding, LLC. Counsel for Plaintiff shall notify this Court within seven

11

days of a decision in its appeal. All further proceedings in this case are stayed.

12

30
DATED: July ___, 2020

13
14
15

_______________________________
Roger T. Benitez
United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-