Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03727/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03727-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEXIOS KAFATOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03727-JST 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

Re: ECF No. 25

Before the Court is Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (“Uber”) Motion to Stay. ECF 

No. 25. The Court will deny the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 14, 2015, Plaintiff Alexios Kafatos filed this putative class action against Uber,

for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). ECF No. 1, 

Complaint. Kafatos alleges that Uber texted him without prior express consent through use of an 

automatic telephone dialing system as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). Id. ¶¶ 9–16. Kafatos 

seeks to represent a class “consisting of all persons within the United States who received any 

unsolicited text messages and/or any other unsolicited text messages from Defendant without prior 

express consent.” Id. ¶ 19. Kafatos alleges that he and the putative class members were harmed 

by Uber’s text messages through cellular telephone charges incurred or reduced cellular telephone 

time and invasion of privacy. Id. ¶ 21. 

On November 13, 2015, Uber filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings in light of two pending 

appeals.

1

 ECF No. 25 at 1–2. Uber argues that both the D.C. Circuit’s review of the 2015 FCC

 

1 Uber is a defendant in three other TCPA cases: (1) Lathrop v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 

3:14-cv-05678-JST filed in the Northern District of California on December 31, 2014; (2) 

Kolloukian v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02856-PSG-JEM filed in the Central 

District of California on April 17, 2015; and (3) Vergara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 

Case 3:15-cv-03727-JST Document 40 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Omnibus Order of the TCPA in ACA International, et al. v. Federal Communications 

Commission, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir. filed July 10, 2015), and the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015), could fundamentally alter the outcome of this case. 

Id. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[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). Whether to stay 

proceedings is entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See id. 254–55 (“How this can best 

be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an 

even balance.”).

In deciding whether to stay proceedings pending resolution of an appeal in another action, 

a district court must weigh various competing interests, including the possible damage which may 

result from granting a stay, the hardship a party may suffer if the case is allowed to go forward, 

and “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.” Lockyer v. Mirant 

Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). The burden is on the movant to show that a stay is 

appropriate. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).

III. DISCUSSION

Uber requests that the Court stay this case pending a decision from the D.C. Circuit in 

ACA International and the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo. See ECF No. 25. Plaintiffs 

oppose the motion, arguing that the terms at issue in the 2015 FCC Order and the standing issues 

in Spokeo are inapplicable to the case at bar. ECF No. 28.

The Court will deny Uber’s motion. As discussed more fully in its order denying a parallel 

motion to stay in Lathrop v. Uber, Case No. 14-05678-JST, the Court finds that Uber has not met 

 

1:15-cv-06942 filed in the Northern District of Illinois on August 7, 2015. Uber filed motions to 

stay in each case. In Kolloukian, the court granted the unopposed motion to stay. In Vergara, the 

court denied the motion to stay but encouraged the parties to limit discovery. Contemporaneously 

with the issuance of the instant order, this Court denied Uber’s motion to stay in Lathrop.

Case 3:15-cv-03727-JST Document 40 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

its burden of establishing that a stay is warranted. Although decisions in ACA International and 

Spokeo2could be beneficial to this action by clarifying certain questions of law, the parties still 

require discovery on a number of factual issues regardless of the outcome of those cases. Uber has 

not shown this is one of the “rare circumstances” in which a stay pending the resolution of an 

appeal in another case is appropriate. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Uber’s motion to stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

2

Plaintiffs have articulated concrete injury and are not simply relying on a bare violation of the 

statute. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 21 (identifying harms such as cell charges and invasion of privacy). See, 

e.g., Johnson v. Navient Sols., Inc., No. 115CV00716LJMMJD, 2015 WL 8784150, at *2 (S.D. 

Ind. Dec. 15, 2015) (denying stay in TCPA action pursuant to Spokeo because plaintiff’s 

allegations related to the intrusion of privacy stated a claim for actual harm); Doe v. 

Selection.com, No. 15-cv-02338-WHO, 2015 WL 5853700 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015) 

(denying stay in FCRA action because plaintiff adequately alleged actual injury and because 

balance of hardships did not warrant a stay).

Case 3:15-cv-03727-JST Document 40 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 3