Ernst v. Dish Network, LLC et al

Filing 252

ORDER denying 215 Motion to Certify Class; granting 243 Letter Motion to Stay. WHEREAS, on September 14, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for class certification, seeking to certify three classes of contractor technicians in their claims under the Fai r Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. ("FCRA"). WHEREAS, on December 4, 2015, Defendants DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH Network Service L.L.C. (collectively, "Defendants" or "DISH") filed a motion for a stay, requesting the Court to reserve ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until after the Supreme Court issues a decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (2015). It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion for a stay is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. It is further ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the parties shall file a joint letter not to exceed three pages summarizing the decision's holding and its impact on this case. The joint letter shall include a proposed briefing schedule for any renewed motion for class certification. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 215 and 243. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 1/28/2016) (mro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
SCOTT ERNST, et al., individually and as
:
representatives of the classes,
:
Plaintiff, :
:
-against:
:
DISH NETWORK, LLC, et al.,
:
Defendants. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 01/28/2016
12 Civ. 8794 (LGS)
ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for class certification, seeking to
certify three classes of contractor technicians in their claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (“FCRA”).
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2015, Defendants DISH Network L.L.C. and DISH
Network Service L.L.C. (collectively, “Defendants” or “DISH”) filed a motion for a stay,
requesting the Court to reserve ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification until after the
Supreme Court issues a decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (2015). It is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for a stay is GRANTED.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Louis Vuitton
Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2012) (same); see also Clinton v. Jones,
520 U.S. 681, 707 (1997) (“[T]he District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an
incident to its power to control its own docket.”). Courts consider the following factors when
deciding motions for a stay:

“(1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil
litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the
private interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts;
(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public
interest.”
Sikhs for Justice v. Nath, 893 F. Supp. 2d 598, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Wing Shing Prods.
(BVI) Ltd. v. Simatelex Manufactory Co., No. 01 Civ. 1044, 2005 WL 912184, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 19, 2005)).
On April 27, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. 135 S.
Ct. 1892 (2015). The parties in Spokeo briefed the following issue: “Whether Congress may
confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore
could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of
action based on a bare violation of a federal statute.” Question Presented, Spokeo v. Robins,
www.supremecourt.gov/qp/13-01339qp.pdf. Petitioner Spokeo’s main argument is that the
plaintiffs do not have Article III standing because the alleged violations of the FCRA “do not
satisfy Article III’s concrete harm requirement.” Brief for Petitioner, Spokeo, Inc., 135 S. Ct.
1892, 2015 WL 4148655, at *9. Oral arguments were held on November 2, 2015, and a decision
is expected within the normal timeframe.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo will likely clarify whether or not the named
Plaintiffs and potential class members in this case have Article III standing. The definitions for
each of Plaintiffs’ three proposed classes premise membership on DISH’s alleged violations of
various FCRA provisions. Similar to Spokeo’s arguments before the Supreme Court, Defendants
argue that two of the three named Plaintiffs “neither alleged to have suffered, nor actually
suffered, any concrete harm other than a purported violation of their rights under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.” Defendants argue further that class certification would be improper because
2

potential class members may similarly lack Article III standing. Defs.’ Br. at 2–3 (citing Denney
v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 264 (2d Cir. 2006) (“[N]o class may be certified that
contains members lacking Article III standing.”).
In their opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court’s
decision in Spokeo will not impact this case because the cases are distinguishable on their facts,
and because “the injuries alleged here . . . are substantially more concrete” than in Spokeo.
Plaintiffs contend further that “[i]n order for the outcome in Spokeo to affect this Court’s
jurisdiction in this case, the Supreme Court’s decision would have to radically alter the law of
standing . . . and go well beyond the facts presented in Spokeo.”
While it is possible that the Supreme Court will decide Spokeo in a way that supports
Plaintiffs’ position or does not impact this case, the question the Supreme Court granted certiorari
for and heard argument on is broad enough to suggest that the decision will shed light on the
contours of Article III standing in the FCRA context. For example, Plaintiffs rely on FEC v.
Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), for their “informational injury” theory, and argue that the Supreme
Court is unlikely to overturn the case. Both parties in Spokeo, however, briefed Akins. See Brief
for Petitioner, Spokeo Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1892, 2015 WL 4148655, at *43 (“[N]either Akins nor
Public Citizen holds that the violation of a mere statutory right is itself the injury in fact. Rather,
the Court grounded its decisions in the separate, particularized, concrete effects on the plaintiffs
of the denial of access to the requested information.”); Brief of Respondent, Spokeo Inc., 135 S.
Ct. 1892, 2015 WL 5169094, at *41 (distinguishing Akins and arguing: “This is not an action
driven by an ‘injury to the interest in seeing that the law is obeyed.’”). The Supreme Court’s
decision in Spokeo may shed light Akins’ application to this case and whether Plaintiffs’ injuries
are cognizable.
3

Considering the various factors, a stay is warranted. At a minimum, the Supreme Court’s
decision in Spokeo is likely to provide guidance on the types of injuries that are sufficiently
“concrete” to confer Article III standing in FCRA cases. Such guidance in turn would impact the
Court’s ruling on class certification and how this case should be managed moving forward.
Proceeding in the absence of such guidance would risk rulings in the present case that are
inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in Spokeo, requiring vacating or amending
them after the fact. The interests of the Court and the public are better served by the issuance of a
stay. Any prejudice to Plaintiffs’ interest in proceeding expeditiously would be minimal, as the
Supreme Court heard arguments for Spokeo in November 2015. See Sikhs for Justice, 893 F.
Supp. 2d at 622 (“Any delay resulting from a stay will likely be of short duration, given that the
Supreme Court has already heard oral argument in the case . . . .”). It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is DENIED without prejudice to
renewal. It is further
ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, the
parties shall file a joint letter not to exceed three pages summarizing the decision’s holding and
its impact on this case. The joint letter shall include a proposed briefing schedule for any
renewed motion for class certification.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Nos. 215 and 243.
Dated: January 28, 2016
New York, New York

4