Thompson v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

Filing 44

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 31 Defendant's Motion to Stay Case, is GRANTED. The Court STAYS the case pending the United States Supreme Courts decision in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511. Plaintiff and Defendant shall jointly file a statu s report every sixty days, beginning 4/9/2021. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 7 Defendants first Motion to Stay, is DENIED as moot. See Order for Details. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 2/16/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Case 2:20-cv-00266-GMN-EJY Document 44 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

BRANDON THOMPSON,
4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.,
7

Defendant.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:20-cv-00266-GMN-EJY
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Credit One Bank, N.A.’s (“Defendant’s”) Motion

9
10

to Stay Case, (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff Brandon Thompson (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF

11

No. 34), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF No. 36). For the reasons discussed below, the

12

Court GRANTS the Motion to Stay.
This case arises from Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant sent Plaintiff and other

13
14

similarly situated persons text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection

15

Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq. (the “TCPA”). Plaintiff alleges that he received text messages

16

from Defendant that Defendant sent without Plaintiff’s express consent and by employing an

17

automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”).1 (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 34, ECF No. 1). Specifically,

18

Plaintiff alleges he received three text messages regarding his account that were sent from an

19

SMS code indicating that they had been sent to consumers en masse. (Id. ¶¶ 40–44).2 As a

20

result, Plaintiff alleges that he and other putative class members throughout the country have

21

suffered damages from nuisance and invasion of privacy. (Id. ¶ 35). Defendant seeks to stay

22
23
1

24
25

The allegations regarding the means employed to send the messages parrot the statutory definition of ATDS.
(See Compl. ¶ 34); 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).
While the messages suggest Plaintiff banked with Defendant, he alleges he presently “has no business or other
association with Credit One Bank.” (Compl. ¶ 30). However, he does not allege that he never held an account
with Defendant nor gave his phone number to Defendant.
2

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:20-cv-00266-GMN-EJY Document 44 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 3

1

the case in light of the United States Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in Facebook, Inc. v.

2

Duguid, No. 19-511, which implicates how a plaintiff may plead and prove that an alleged

3

TCPA violator sent calls or text messages through an ATDS.

4

District courts have broad power to stay proceedings pursuant to their inherent power to

5

manage their dockets. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55 (1936); Bechtel Corp. v.

6

Laborers’ Int’l Union, 544 F.2d 1207, 1215 (3d Cir. 1976); see, e.g., Collins v. Collins, No.

7

3:16-cv-00111-MMD-WGC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209881, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2019). In

8

deciding whether to issue a stay, the court should consider “the possible damage which may

9

result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being

10

required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying

11

or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a

12

stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v.

13

Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The court should also consider the judicial resources

14

that may be saved by staying the action. See, e.g., Pate v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 2:12-

15

cv-01168-MMD-CWH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114333, 2012 WL 3532780, at *2 (D. Nev.

16

Aug. 14, 2012).

17

On July 9, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of

18

certiorari in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. The issue before the Court is whether the TCPA’s

19

definition of ATDS includes any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone

20

numbers, even if the alleged ATDS does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”

21

See Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Issues Presented ¶ 2, Facebook, Inc., 141 S.Ct. 193 (No. 19-

22

511). If the Court answers the question in the negative, then text messages sent to numbers of

23

customers or former customers that are germane to customers’ accounts likely do not violate

24

the TCPA. The question bears substantially upon the scope of the class in this case and what

25

facts Plaintiff would have to allege to adequately plead a TCPA violation. Given the

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:20-cv-00266-GMN-EJY Document 44 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 3

1

substantial clarifying effect of a stay in this case, and the minimal prejudice to Plaintiff as a

2

result of a stay,3 the Court finds a stay warranted.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay Case, (ECF No. 31), is

5

GRANTED. The Court STAYS the case pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision

6

in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511. Plaintiff and Defendant shall jointly file a status

7

report every sixty days, beginning April 9, 2021, addressing the status of Facebook, Inc. v.

8

Duguid, No. 19-511 and the need for the case to remain stayed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions currently pending before the Court in this

9
10

matter need not be refiled, and the Court will address them once the stay is lifted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s first Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 7), is

11
12

DENIED as moot.
Dated this ___ day of February, 2021.
16

13
14
15
16

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff’s allegation that delay will result in “allowance of Defendant’s continued and ongoing use of an ATDS
to contact Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers” is unpersuasive given that the Supreme Court’s
forthcoming opinion may indicate that Defendant did not use an ATDS. (Resp. Mot. Stay 13:16–18, ECF No.
34). Even if Defendant did use an ATDS, the alleged harm to each putative class member is nominal. Given the
nominal harm, the Court also finds that the benefits of a stay outweigh the alleged risk that putative class
members or Defendant will lose records of their text messages from Defendant. (Id. 14:8–27).
3

24
25

Page 3 of 3