Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01553/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-01553-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:553 Communications Act of 1994

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUZAN MENDOZA,

Plaintiff, No. C 13-1553 PJH

v. ORDER

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Before the court is the motion of defendant MD247.com, Inc. ("MD247.com") for an

order staying the above-entitled action. Having read the parties' papers and carefully

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the

motion.

Defendant argues that this action should be stayed on primary jurisdiction grounds,

because the FCC has undertaken consideration of a threshold issue raised by plaintiff’s

complaint, and that the court should defer any ruling on the issues until such time as the

FCC has exercised its expertise in deciding those issues. 

The primary jurisdiction doctrine is "a prudential doctrine under which courts may,

under appropriate circumstances, determine that the initial decision-making responsibility

should be performed by the relevant agency rather than the courts.” Davel Commc’ns, Inc.

v. Qwest Corp., 460 F.3d 1075, 1080, 1086 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Syntek Semiconductor

Co., Ltd. v. Microchip Tech., Inc., 307 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2002).

The doctrine is applicable whenever the enforcement of a claim subject to a specific

regulatory scheme requires resolution of issues that are within the special competence of

an administrative body. See Davel Commc’ns, 460 F.3d at 1086. The doctrine is

Case 4:13-cv-01553-PJH Document 61 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

furthermore appropriate where conduct is alleged which is “at least arguably protected or

prohibited by a regulatory statute,” and agency resolution of an issue “is likely to be a

material aid to any judicial resolution.” See, e.g., GTE.Net LLC v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 185

F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1144 (S.D. Cal. 2002) (granting motion to stay on primary jurisdiction

grounds).

While no fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine, the Ninth Circuit traditionally

looks to four factors that must be satisfied for the doctrine to apply: (1) the need to resolve

an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of an administrative

body having regulatory authority (3) pursuant to a statute that subjects an industry or

activity to a comprehensive regulatory scheme that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in

administration. See Davel, 460 F.3d at 1087; United States v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 828

F.2d 1356, 1362 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110,

1115-16 (9th Cir. 2008). 

On balance, these factors are satisfied here. Plaintiff has alleged that defendants

MD247.com, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, Optum, Inc., and HealthAllies, Inc. violated

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. ("the TCPA") by

initiating calls to plaintiff's cellular telephone without her prior express consent using an

automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). Cplt ¶¶ 2-3. The TCPA and implementing

regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") define

ATDS as "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be

called using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers." See 47

U.S.C. § 227(a)(1); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(2). See, e.g., Complaint ¶¶ 21-22. 

MD247.com contends that at the time of the alleged calls, it did not utilize any

capacity that its predictive dialer may have had to store or produce telephone numbers to

be called using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such numbers. MD247.com

asserts further that there has been considerable debate regarding what constitutes an

ATDS, and of relevance to this action, whether the dialing equipment's present capacity is

the determinative factor in classifying it as an ATDS, or whether the equipment's

Case 4:13-cv-01553-PJH Document 61 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

potential capacity with hardware and/or software alterations should be considered,

regardless of whether the potential capacity is utilized at the time the calls are made. 

The FCC is currently considering multiple petitions for a declaratory ruling that

addresses this issue. See, e.g., FCC Items on Circulation, available at

http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/circ_items.cgi (last visited Jan. 6, 2014). For example, on

June 25, 2013, the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau ("CGB") issued a

public notice requesting comment on a petition for an expedited declaratory ruling by

YouMail, Inc., seeking clarification that its sofware is not an ATDS because it does not have

the current capacity to store, produce, or dial random or sequential numbers. On

November 19, 2013, the CGB issued a public notice requesting comment on a petition for

expedited declaratory ruling and/or rulemaking, from PACE, seeking a clarification that a

dialing system is not an ATDS unless it has the capacity to dial numbers without human

intervention. On December 2, 2013, the CGB issued a public notice requesting comment

on a petition for expedited declaratory ruling filed by Glide Talk, Ltd., seeking clarification

that the TCPA's restrictions on the use of autodialers to call wireless numbers applies only

to equipment that could at the time of the call, be used to store numbers or generate

sequential or randomized telephone numbers. 

As the issue raised by MD247 directly overlaps with the legal issues before the court

by way of plaintiff’s complaint, the court concludes that the FCC is in the process of utilizing

its recognized expertise to consider issues pending before the court. As such, the

prerequisites for application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine are satisfied, and allowing

the FCC to resolve the foregoing issues prior to adjudicating the issue in the present action,

in order to obtain the benefit of the FCC’s guidance, is appropriate. See Davel Commc’ns,

460 F.3d at 1087. While the court is sensitive to plaintiff's concerns that allowing the FCC

to rule upon the issues before the court will engender unfair delay, the court also notes that

the September 10, 2013 correspondence between the then-acting head of the FCC and

Congressional representatives (cited in MD247.com's papers) indicates that FCC

anticipates resolving this issue relatively soon. 

Case 4:13-cv-01553-PJH Document 61 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

In these circumstances, and furthermore in view of the relatively early stage of the

present action, the court finds that the benefit to be provided by FCC guidance on

potentially dispositive issues in this litigation outweighs the benefit to plaintiff in allowing the

action to proceed. As a result, the court accordingly GRANTS defendants’ request to

STAY the current action, pending the FCC’s resolution of related issues. 

No later than six months from the date of this order, the parties shall file a status

statement with the court, advising as to the FCC's progress on resolving these issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2014 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-01553-PJH Document 61 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 4