French v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Filing 17

ORDER Granting 11 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 7/6/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

MARY FRENCH,

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
)
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:17-cv-00925-GMN-NJK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
(Docket No. 11)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to stay. Docket No. 11. Plaintiff filed a response

17

in opposition, and Defendant filed a reply. Docket Nos. 12, 16. The Court finds this motion properly

18

resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motion

19

to stay is hereby GRANTED.

20

I.

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer

22

Protection Act. See Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 46-55.1 In particular, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant called her cell

23

phone using an “automatic telephone dialing system” without her consent. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 24-26. On

24

October 19, 2016, the D.C. Circuit held oral arguments in the case of ACA International v. Federal

25

Communications Commission, a consolidated case involving multiple challenges to the FCC’s

26

interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. One such challenge is to the FCC’s order

27
28

1

Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her state law claim. See Docket No. 10.

1

defining “automatic telephone dialing system.” Defendant moves the Court for a stay of this case pending

2

resolution of ACA International.

3

II.

STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS

4

Courts have inherent power to stay the cases before them as a matter of controlling their own docket

5

and calendar. See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). This power to stay is

6

“incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of action on its

7

docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. at 254. The movant

8

bears the burden of showing that a stay is warranted. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).

9
10
11
12

In exercising its discretion, the Ninth Circuit has outlined various factors to be considered:
Where it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which
will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among those
competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,
the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the
orderly course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof,
and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.

13
14

Lockyer v. Mirant, 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268

15

(9th Cir. 1962)).

16

In this case, Defendant seeks a stay of proceedings pending the D.C. Circuit’s issuance of a decision

17

in ACA International. Defendant has shown that the ACA International proceeding in the D.C. Circuit will

18

likely bear on the issues in this case. Moreover, numerous judges within the Ninth Circuit and several

19

judges within this District, have weighed the equitable factors in circumstances similar to those here and

20

have concluded that a stay is warranted. See, e.g., Pichardo v. Amerigroup Corporation, 2017 U.S. Dist.

21

Lexis 88691 (D. Nev. June 8, 2017); Gage v. Cox Comms., Inc., 2017 WL 1536220, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr.

22

26, 2017); Lilly v. Synchrony Fin’l, 2017 WL 1370698 (D. Nev. Apr. 7, 2017); Spencer v. Kohl’s Dept.

23

Stores, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16420 (D. Nev. Feb. 6, 2017). Plaintiff has provided no persuasive

24
25
26
27
28
2

1

reason for the undersigned to depart from those conclusions in this case.2 Instead, using those cases as

2

guidance here, the Court concludes that the relevant factors weigh heavily in favor of a stay.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

For the reasons discussed more fully above, the motion to stay is hereby GRANTED. Once a

5

decision has been announced by the D.C. Circuit in ACA International, either party may move to lift the

6

stay.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: July 6, 2017

9

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff cites instead to Toldi v. Hyundai Capital America, which refused to enter a stay based on
the conclusory arguments raised in support thereof. 2017 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26205, at *7 (D. Nev. Feb. 23,
2017). As such, Toldi is distinguishable from this case. See, e.g., Lilly, 2017 WL 1370698, at *2
(distinguishing Toldi on this basis).
3