United States District Court, D. Nevada
FERENBACH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court are Synchrony Financial's motion to stay
proceedings (ECF No. 13), Lilly's response (ECF No. 15),
and Synchrony's reply (ECF No. 18). For the reasons
stated below, Synchrony's motion is granted.
power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the causes of
action 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). “A trial
court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own
docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay
of an action before it, pending resolution of independent
proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v.
Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th
deciding whether to grant a stay, a court may weigh the
following: (1) the possible damage which may result from the
granting of a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity which a
party may suffer in being required to go forward; (3) the
orderly course of justice measured in terms of the
simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions
of law which could be expected to result from a stay.”
Platinum Realty & Holdings, LLC v. Lee, No.
2:13-CV-535-GMN-NJK, 2016 WL 5745125, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 6,
time, Lilly is proceeding on two federal causes of action
against Synchrony. (ECF No. 1) Lilly's third cause of
action, a state law claim, was dismissed (ECF No. 9) Both
causes of action allege violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). (ECF No. 1) Both rely on
Synchrony's alleged use of an automatic dialer as defined
the TCPA. (Id.)
in the Ninth Circuit-and around the country-have granted
stays of cases involving the TCPA pending the decision in ACA
International and resolution of the definition of the word
‘capacity.'” Clayton v. Synchrony
Bank, No. 1:16-CV-01241-JLT, 2016 WL 7106018, at *3
(E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) For example, “in
Small [v. GE Capital, No. EDCV 15-2479 JGB,
2016 WL 4502460 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 9, 2016) ], the Central
District of California determined a stay was appropriate in
another action against Synchrony Bank because ‘the
ruling in ACA International will likely bear on
whether Synchrony Bank's dialer at time of the calls at
issue was an automatic telephone dialing system.”
courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have held, the D.C.
Circuit's decision in ACA International will
define what devices qualify as automatic dialers for the
purposes of the TCPA. For her part, Lilly has not
articulated, beyond generalized concerns over an inability to
prosecute this action, specifically how she will be harmed if
this action is stayed. (ECF No. 15) Additionally, the
majority of Lilly's argument rely on the prospect of
future appeals of the D.C. Circuit's ACA
International decision. (Id.) These concerns
are premature. The D.C. Circuit has yet to issue its decision
and any claim that said decision will be appealed to the
Supreme Court is speculation.
court finds no reason for deviate from other district courts
in the Ninth Circuit. This action is stayed pending the D.C.
Circuit's decision in ACA International.
cites two District of Nevada cases to support her argument
that this action should not be stayed. First, she cites
Maldonado v. HSBC Mortgage Services, No.
2:16-cv-784-JAD-VCF, 2017 WL 131744 at *1 (D.Nev. Jan. 10,
2017). Maldonado, however, addressed a stay of
discovery pending the resolution of a dispositive motion.
Id. This action concerns a stay of all proceedings
pending a decision in a related action. Apart from using a
different legal standard, this action is distinguishable from
Maldonado because there is no pending dispositive
motion which could warrant a stay of discovery. Lilly's
reliance on this case is misplaced.
Lilly cites Toldi v. Hyundai Capital America, No.
2:16-cv-01877-APG-GWF, 2017 WL 736882 at *3 (D.Nev. Feb. 23,
2017), to support her position that courts in this district
have denied stay based on ACA International. Toldi,
however, is distinguishable from this action. In
Toldi, the district judge denied Hyundai's stay
request because it offered a single, conclusory statement in
support of its stay. Id. Here, Synchrony provided a
detailed explanation about the specific issue that will be
resolved by ACA International. As stated above, this
explanation warrants a stay of this action.
HEREBY ORDERED that Synchrony's motion to stay (ECF No.
13) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that this action is stayed pending the D.C.