Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02549/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02549-1/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DESIREE ALVARADO,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BAY AREA CREDIT SERVICE, LLC,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 14-cv-02549-SC

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is Defendant Bay Area Credit Service, 

LLC's ("BACS") motion to stay this case pending the resolution of 

certain petitions currently pending before the Federal 

Communications Commission ("FCC"). The motion is fully briefed1

and appropriate for determination without oral argument per Civil 

Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, BACS' motion 

is DENIED.

 

1 ECF Nos. 26 ("Mot."), 33 ("Opp'n"), 34 ("Reply").

Case 4:14-cv-02549-HSG Document 39 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 5
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

For the Northern District of California

II. BACKGROUND

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 

codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., prohibits the use of an 

automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to call a cellular 

telephone service. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff Desiree 

Alvarado (on behalf of herself and a putative plaintiff class)

alleges that BACS used an ATDS to call her cell phone to collect on 

a debt. ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 13-16. BACS now moves for a stay 

under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, arguing that the FCC is 

currently deciding an issue that is dispositive in this case. 

Specifically, the FCC is considering petitions seeking a 

declaration that "the TCPA's automatic telephone dialing system 

restriction only applies to equipment that can, at the time of the 

call, be used to store or generate sequential or randomized 

telephone numbers." Mot. at 5.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

"The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay 

proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the 

resolution of an issue within the special competence of an 

administrative agency." Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110, 

1114 (9th Cir. 2008). Primary jurisdiction is a "prudential" 

doctrine that permits a court to stay or dismiss a case if "an 

otherwise cognizable claim implicates technical and policy 

questions that should be addressed in the first instance by the 

agency with regulatory authority over the relevant industry rather 

than by the judicial branch." Id. (citing Syntek Semiconductor 

Co., Ltd. v. Microchip Tech. Inc., 307 F.3d 775, 782 (9th Cir.

Case 4:14-cv-02549-HSG Document 39 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 5
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

For the Northern District of California

2002)). "[I]t is to be used only if a claim requires resolution of 

an issue of first impression, or of a particularly complicated 

issue that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency, and if 

protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates 

preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme."

Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Jordan v. 

Nationstar Mortg. LLC, No. 14-CV-00787-WHO, 2014 WL 5359000, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (discussing legal standard for primary 

jurisdiction doctrine).

"No fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine of primary 

jurisdiction," Davel Commc'ns, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 460 F.3d 1075, 

1086 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. W. Pac. R. Co., 352 

U.S. 59, 64 (1956)), but the Ninth Circuit has held that 

The primary jurisdiction doctrine prescribes deference to 

an administrative agency where (1) the issue is not 

"within the conventional experiences of judges," (2) the 

issue "involves technical or policy considerations within 

the agency's particular field of expertise," (3) the 

issue "is particularly within the agency's discretion," 

or (4) "there exists a substantial danger of inconsistent 

rulings."

Maronyan v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 658 F.3d 1038, 1048-

49 (9th Cir. 2011). "A court also must balance the parties' need 

to resolve the action expeditiously against the benefits of 

obtaining the federal agency's expertise on the issues." 

Nationstar, 2014 WL 5359000, at *4.

IV. DISCUSSION

Precisely this issue was recently raised in another case in 

this District. In Nationstar, Judge Orrick considered whether 

pending FCC decisions counseled a stay of that matter. One such

Case 4:14-cv-02549-HSG Document 39 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

issue before the FCC was "whether dialing equipment that lacks the 

current capacity for random or sequential dialing constitutes an 

'automatic telephone dialing system' ('ATDS') as defined by the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act . . . ." Id. at *1. Indeed, 

some of the petitions that Judge Orrick considered are exactly the 

same ones that BACS identifies here. Compare id. at *5 

(identifying FCC petitions from ACA International, YouMail, 

Professional Association for Customer Engagement, and TextMe), with

Mot. at 6-7 (identifying the same petitions).

Judge Orrick discussed the primary jurisdiction factors from 

Maronyan in great detail and determined that primary jurisdiction 

doctrine was "not warranted" because "[t]he interpretation of 

'capacity' is within the Ninth Circuit's experience, does not 

involve technical expertise, and does not impose a substantial 

danger of inconsistent rulings." Nationstar, 2014 WL 5359000, at 

*8. The Court agrees, and finds that these factors weigh against 

application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine.

Also important is likelihood that the FCC will rule on the 

issue soon. If it is probably going to be a long time until the 

FCC rules, then the prejudice to Ms. Alvarado is likely to be 

correspondingly greater and the delay caused will be 

correspondingly longer. As a result, BACS argues repeatedly that 

an FCC decision is imminent. See Mot. at 7; Reply at 3-4. BACS

points out that the Ninth Circuit has held that "a reasonable time 

for agency action is typically counted in weeks or months, not 

years." Reply at 3 (quoting In re Am. Rivers & Idaho Rivers 

United, 372 F.3d 413, 419 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). In further support of 

that claim, BACS cites a court order predicting that a decision on 

Case 4:14-cv-02549-HSG Document 39 Filed 01/16/15 Page 4 of 5
5

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

the ATDS petitions was expected "relatively soon." See Reply at 3 

(citing Mendoza v. UnitedHealth Grp. Inc., No. 13-1553 PJH, 2014 WL 

722031, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2014)). But that order is from 

January 2014 -- over a year ago. Some of the petitions that 

support BACS' motion are even older: the Glide Talk petition was 

filed in October 2013, and the YouMail petition was filed in April 

2013. See Reply at 5-6. Thus there is no indication that a 

decision from the FCC is coming any time soon.

V. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the primary jurisdiction doctrine is 

inapplicable in this case and that staying this matter pending the 

FCC's decision could potentially cause an interminable delay. 

Defendant Bay Area Credit Service, LLC's motion to stay this action 

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-02549-HSG Document 39 Filed 01/16/15 Page 5 of 5