Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-06314/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-06314-9/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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., ET 

AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

ALARM.COM INCORPORATED, ET AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 15-cv-06314-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

Re: Dkt. No. 215 

Plaintiffs1

 Abante Rooter and Plumbing, Inc., Mark Hankins, and Philip Charvat bring this 

class action against defendants Alarm.com Incorporated and Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. 

(collectively, “Alarm.com”) alleging four counts: (i) violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (“TCPA”) for calls made to cellular telephones; (ii) violations of the TCPA for 

calls made to residential telephone lines; and (iii) violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) and 47 

U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) for calls made to members of the National Do-Not-Call Registry (“DNC 

Registry”). (Dkt. No. 1, Class Action Complaint (“Compl.”).) Relevant to the instant motion, on 

May 1, 2018, Alarm.com filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of plaintiffs’ claims on 

two grounds, including that plaintiffs have failed to establish that the telemarketing calls were 

placed using an automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) within the meaning of the TCPA. 

(Dkt. No. 195 at i.) On May 22, 2018, plaintiffs filed their response and cross-motion for 

summary judgment on the grounds that the dialing system used to make the telemarking calls 

constitutes an ATDS as a matter of law. (Dkt. No. 205 at 25.) Now, Alarm.com moves to stay 

 1

 Claims brought by plaintiff George Ross Manesiotis were dismissed without prejudice 

pursuant to stipulation on July 25, 2016. (Dkt. No. 58.) 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 232 Filed 07/02/18 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 

Northern District of Californi

a

this action pending the outcome of Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, Case No. 14-56834 (9th Cir. 

December 14, 2016). (Dkt. No. 215 (“Motion”).) 

Having carefully reviewed the pleadings and the papers submitted, and for the reasons set 

forth more fully below, Court DENIES Alarm.com’s motion to stay the action pending a decision 

in Marks. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are consumers and a small business that allegedly received telemarketing calls 

from Alliance or its agents, allegedly on behalf of Alarm.com. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs assert that 

Alliance or its agents made these calls to (i) cell phone numbers using an ATDS or an artificial or 

prerecorded voice, (ii) residential numbers using an artificial or prerecorded voice, and (iii) 

numbers on the DNC Registry. (Id. at ¶¶ 157–64, 169–74.) On May 5, 2017, the Court certified 

three classes: (i) Cell Phone Class, (ii) Residential Class, and (iii) National Do-Not-Call Class. 

(Dkt. No. 126 at 2.) 

Alarm.com seeks summary judgment as to all of plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds that (i) 

plaintiffs cannot establish vicarious liability for the telemarketing calls at issue, which were made 

by an independent contractor, Alliance, and (ii) plaintiffs have failed to establish that the 

telemarketing calls were placed using an ATDS within the meaning of the TCPA. (Dkt. No. 195 

at i.) Specifically, Alarm.com argues that defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to the 

claims raised by the Cell Phone Class2

 because “the D.C. Circuit recently vacated the FCC order 

on which the plaintiffs’ theory of liability relies.” (Id. at 21 (citing ACA International v. Federal 

Communications Commission, 2018 WL 1352922 (D.C. Cir. March 16, 2018)). 

 2

 The Court defined the Cell Phone Class as follows: “All persons in the United States, to 

whom: (a) Alliance or its agents, on Defendants’ behalf, instituted one or more non-emergency 

telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants’ goods or services; (c) to a recipient’s cellular 

telephone number; (d) through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or 

prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since October 15, 2013; (f) except those persons that provided 

Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance or its agents, on 

Defendants’ behalf.” (Dkt. No. 126 at 16.) 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 232 Filed 07/02/18 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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Alarm.com argues that plaintiffs’ assertion regarding the nature of the Ytel dialing system 

used to make the calls (“Ytel Dialer”) – that the system “has the capacity to store or produce 

telephone numbers to be called . . . from a list or database of numbers, and to dial such numbers 

without human intervention” – is insufficient to establish that the Ytel Dialer is an ATDS under 

the TCPA. (Id. at 22 (emphasis in original).) Alarm.com avers that following the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in ACA International, “the only valid definition of an ATDS is the one provided in the 

statute,” which “at no point . . . provide[s] an alternative definition of an ATDS whereby 

equipment that lacks the capacity to store or produce numbers ‘using a random or sequential 

number generator,’ . . . becomes an ATDS.” (Id. at 22-23.) 

In response, plaintiffs seek summary judgment on the grounds that the Ytel Dialer is an 

ATDS as a matter of law. (Dkt. No. 205 at 25.) Plaintiffs assert that the Ytel Dialer is a predictive 

dialer that “provides several types of automatic telephone dialing software services including 

predictive dialing, power dialing, progressive dialing and preview dialing services.” (Id. at 22 

(internal citations omitted).) Plaintiffs argue that Alarm.com “overstates the holding in ACA 

[International]” and that a predictive dialer remains an ATDS within the meaning of the TCPA, 

even after the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International. (Id. at 22-23.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Alarm.com now requests that the Court stay the instant case pending the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision in Marks. (Motion at 3.) A stay pending the resolution of an appeal in another case is 

appropriate only in “rare circumstances.” Landis v. North American Company, 299 U.S. 248, 255 

(1936). In contemplating a stay, a court may consider whether (i) a final result is imminently 

forthcoming; (ii) the impending decision would have an impact on the issues raised in the instant 

matter; (iii) the moving party demonstrates hardship in moving forwarding; and (iv) a stay will 

prejudice the non-moving party. See Glick v. Performant Fin. Corp., 2017 WL 786293 at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017) (denying defendant’s motion to stay the case pending decisions in ACA 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 232 Filed 07/02/18 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 

Northern District of Californi

a

International and Marks); Edwards v. Oportun, Inc., 193 F.Supp.3d 1096, 1100-1102 (N.D. Cal. 

2016). 

Given the recent decision in ACA International, the pending resolution of which was the 

Ninth Circuit’s express reasoning for sua sponte ordering a stay in Marks, a final result in Marks

may be forthcoming. The impending decision in Marks will constitute controlling law and will 

likely clarify the Ninth Circuit’s position on the type of device or system that qualifies as an 

ATDS within the meaning of the TCPA. However, plaintiffs’ TCPA claims are not limited to 

Alarm.com’s use of an ATDS. They also concern Alarm.com’s use of an artificial or prerecorded 

voice system, as well as calls made to individuals on the DNC Registry. (Compl. ¶¶ 157–64, 169–

74); see Mendez v. Optio Solutions, LLC, 239 F.Supp.3d 1229, 1233 (S.D. Cal. 2017) (holding that 

stay of a case pending the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International is inappropriate where 

plaintiff’s TCPA claims are not limited to defendant’s use of an ATDS but also concern 

defendants use of an artificial or prerecorded voice system). In fact, any ruling in Marks would 

only impact one of the three classes certified in this case, the Cell Phone Class. (See Dkt. No. 126 

at 16-17.) 

Although a decision may be forthcoming in Marks that would likely have some impact on 

the issues raised in the instant matter, it is unclear whether a resolution of Marks will “have a 

direct impact on the issues before the court, or substantially simplify the issues presented.” 

Mendez, 239 F.Supp.3d at 1233. “Even if the outcome [in Marks] was relevant to these 

proceedings and favorable to the [d]efendant, other issues would remain ripe for consideration . . . 

and resolution.” Id. Alarm.com points to the potential for re-arguing motions for summary 

judgment as evidence of hardship in moving forward without a stay. (Motion at 7.) However, that 

hardship would apply only to those claims the adjudication of which depend solely on whether the 

calls were made using an ATDS—claims brought by the Cell Phone Class that do not involve 

allegations of an artificial or prerecorded voice system. 

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 232 Filed 07/02/18 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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Therefore, the Court is open to considering bifurcation of the case as between those alleged 

calls involving ATDSs and those involving artificial or prerecorded voice systems or calls to 

individuals on the DNC Registry. However, the Court finds that a stay pending the resolution of 

Marks is not appropriate in the instant case. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Alarm.com’s motion to stay the case pending 

a decision by the Ninth Circuit in Marks. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 215. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-06314-YGR Document 232 Filed 07/02/18 Page 5 of 5