Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02823/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02823-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1332pr Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

' . 

. 1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Ttl 

,::-::Wf 

,':_~'I;Cl;;,\A 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HONEY McEWAN, individually and on 

behalf of others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OSP GROUP, L.P., a Delaware limited 

partnership; et aI., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 14-cv-2823-BEN (WVG) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STAY 

Before this Court is a Motion to Stay, filed by Defendants OSP Group, L.P., OSP 

19 Group Merchant, Inc., OSP Group, Inc., and OSP Group, LLC (collectively, "OSP"). 

20 (Docket No. 46.) For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED. 

21 

22 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff initiated this putative class action in state court, alleging violations of the 

23 California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIP A"). Defendants removed the matter to this 

24 Court on November 26, 2014. (Docket No.1.) On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a 

25 First Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 18.) On July 2, 2015, the Court granted in part 

26 and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. 

27 Defendants attest that they made a, Rule 68 offer to Plaintiff, which she declined. 

28 As a result, they move to stay this action pending the United States Supreme Court's 

14CV2823 

Case 3:14-cv-02823-BEN-WVG Document 52 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 3
1 decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 135 S. Ct. 2311 (2015). The Gomez Court 

2 will address two relevant questions: (1) whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond 

3 the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on 

4 his claim; and (2) whether the answer to the first question is any different when the 

5 plaintiff has asserted a class claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but receives 

6 an offer of complete relief before any class is certified. (Mot. 5, Declaration of Brendan 

7 F. Hug, Ex. B at 12.) 

8 DISCUSSION 

9 "[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 

10 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 

11 itself, for counsel, and for litigants." Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In 

12 determining whether to grant a stay, a court considers: (1) "possible damage which may 

13 result from the granting of a stay," (2) "the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer 

14 in being required to go forward," and (3) "the orderly course of justice measured interms 

15 of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions oflaw which could be 

16 expected to result from a stay." CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265,268 (9th Cir. 1962). 

17 First, Defendants argue that neither party will be damaged by a stay because this 

18 case is still in its infancy. (Mot. 6-7.) Plaintiff argues that further delay in her ability to 

19 conduct discovery will make it more difficult to proceed in the subsequent phases of 

20 litigation, such as class certification. (Opp'n 8.) Significant delays in discovery can 

21 certainly hinder a party's ability to formulate substantive motions. Notably, Plaintiff 

22 prays for injunctive relief. (FAC at 6.) Prolonging the resolution of the alleged privacy 

23 violations, and whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief, is not necessary. See 

24 Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112 (denying stay where plaintiff sought injunctive relief); 

25 Imagenetix, Inc. v. GNC Parent, LLC, No. 12-cv-89, 2012 WL 2923314, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 

26 July 18,2012). This factor therefore weighs against a stay. 

27 Second, Defendants argue that both parties will suffer hardship if forced to 

28 continue litigation because they will incur "potentially avoidable costs" and struggle 

2 

14CV2823 

Case 3:14-cv-02823-BEN-WVG Document 52 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 3
( , 

1 through discovery disputes. (Mot. 7-8.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ordinary 

2 hardship of litigation is not sufficient to warrant a stay. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 

3 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[B]eing required to defend a suit, without more, does 

4 not constitute a 'clear case of hardship or inequity' within the meaning of Landis."). 

5 Defendants failed to present any legally cognizable hardship. Thus, the second factor 

6 also weighs against a stay. 

7 Third, Defendants argue that the Gomez decision will simplify, if not dispose of, 

8 this case. Plaintiff disagrees because the settlement offer here did not provide complete 

9 relief as in Gomez. Without assessing the merits of the Parties' arguments, the Supreme 

10 Court's decision in Gomez will likely have some impact in simplifying this case. 

11 Accordingly, the final factor weighs in favor of a stay. 

12 CONCLUSION 

13 As two out of three factors weigh against staying this case, the Court exercises its 

14 discretion and DENIES Defendants' Motion. 

15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

16 

17 Dated: November~015 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

14CV2823 

Case 3:14-cv-02823-BEN-WVG Document 52 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 3