Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05107/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05107-0/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

GEORGE MORRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLARCITY CORP.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05107-RS 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS, 

STRIKE, AND STAY, AND RE MOTION 

TO SHORTEN TIME

Defendant SolarCity Corp. has filed a motion seeking (1) dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) striking of the class action allegations, (3) a stay of 

discovery pending any determination that plaintiff has stated a viable claim, or (4) a stay of the 

entire action pending a Supreme Court decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015), 

which involves the question of whether a claim for statutory damages gives rise to Article III 

standing in the absence of actual damages. In lieu of opposing the motion the prongs of the 

motion seeking dismissal or striking of the class allegations, plaintiff has filed an amended 

complaint. Neither party, therefore, contemplates that portion of the motion will go forward, and 

SolarCity has indicated it will file a new motion to dismiss and strike. Accordingly, the portion of 

the motion seeking dismissal or to strike the class allegations is denied, without prejudice to 

SolarCity’s right to bring a new motion, based on some or all of the same arguments, directed at 

the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff has filed written opposition to the prongs of the motion seeking a stay of 

Case 3:15-cv-05107-RS Document 32 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 15-cv-05107-RS

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

discovery or a stay of the entire action. SolarCity’s reply brief on those issues is not due until 

February 16, 2016, and the motion is not set to be heard until March 17, 2016. Because plaintiff 

has served certain discovery that requires responses in the interim, SolarCity has filed a motion 

under Civil Local Rule 6-3 to shorten time for hearing the motion to stay. Good cause appearing, 

it is ordered as follows:

1. SolarCity shall file its reply brief regarding a stay of discovery pending any

determination that plaintiff has stated a viable claim, or stay of the entire action pending a decision 

in Spokeo, as scheduled, on or before February 16, 2016.

2. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), those issues will then be submitted for decision 

without oral argument, and the hearing set for March 17, 2016 is vacated.

3. SolarCity is hereby relieved from the obligation to respond to the pending discovery 

requests until seven days after any ruling denying both the motion for a discovery stay and a stay 

of the entire action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05107-RS Document 32 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 2