National Association of the Deaf et al v. Netflix, Inc.

Filing 32

Judge Michael A. Ponsor: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. As follows: Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 22 ) is hereby DENIED, except to the extent that this matter is stayed until February 6, 2012. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE
DEAF, WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, LEE
NETTLES,
Plaintiffs
v.
NETFLIX, INC.,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. NO. 11-cv-30168-MAP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Dkt. No. 22)
November 10, 2011
PONSOR, D.J.
Plaintiffs, the National Association of the Deaf, the
Western Massachusetts Association of the Deaf and Hearing
Impaired, and Lee Nettles, have brought this action under
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)
against Defendant Netflix, Inc., for failure to provide
equal access to its video streaming service, “Watch
Instantly,” for deaf and hearing impaired individuals.
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint (Dkt. No. 22) and the court heard argument on the
motion on November 8, 2011.

At the conclusion of the

hearing, the court indicated that it would deny Defendant’s
motion to the extent that Defendant sought dismissal of the

complaint, stating its reasons in detail.
In summary, dismissal under the “primary jurisdiction
analysis” would be improper, and Defendant’s arguments with
regard to Plaintiffs’ lack of standing and the “first-filed”
rule are unpersuasive.

Similarly, the court is not

persuaded that the “first-filed” rule justifies transfer of
this case to the Northern District of California.
Defendant’s motion, however, will be allowed to the
extent that it seeks a stay of this case pending rule-making
action by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).
The FCC’s determination “lies at the heart” of the matters
at issue here, its expertise will throw light on some
technical aspects of the case, and its determination will be
of assistance to the court.

Rymes Heating Oils, Inc. v.

Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 358 F.3d 82, 91 (1st Cir.
2004).

The motion to stay will be allowed until February 6,

2012, on the assumption that the FCC’s rule-making process
will be complete before the end of January 2012.
As the court indicated at the conclusion of the
hearing, Defendant will file its answer within thirty days.
The parties will submit a status report no later than
February 6, 2012, including copies of any materials issued
by the FCC and a proposed schedule for completion of
pretrial proceedings.

In the event that the FCC delays
-2-

action, the court may reconsider the stay at that time.
In summary, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 22)
is hereby DENIED, except to the extent that this matter is
stayed until February 6, 2012.
It is So Ordered.

/s/ Michael A. Ponsor
MICHAEL A. PONSOR
U. S. District Judge

-3-