Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01049/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01049-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES GUSMAN, individually and

on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13CV1049-GPC(DHB)

ORDER LIFTING STAY AND

SETTING STATUS CONFERENCE

vs.

COMCAST CORPORATION,

Defendant.

On May 21, 2014, the Court stayed the case under the primary jurisdiction

doctrine in order to allow the FederalCommunications Commission (“FCC”) to resolve

an issue pending before it that is also an issue in this case. (Dkt. No. 58.) The relevant

issue is whether “a caller making a call subject to the TCPA to a number reassigned

from the consumer who gave consent for the call to a new consumer is liable for

violating the TCPA.” In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone

Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7999 (2015). On September 15,

2015, the parties filed a fourth joint status report. (Dkt. No. 68.) In the status report,

the parties noted that on July 10, 2015, the FCC released a Declaratory Ruling and

Order that addressed the issue in this case. (Dkt. No. 68-1, Ex. A.) 

The parties dispute whether the stay should be lifted after the FCC’s ruling. 

Defendant argues that the FCC’s ruling does not constitute finalresolution on the issue

in this case because since the ruling, about nine companies have filed petitions with the

- 1 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 69 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 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 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia seeking review of the

FCC’s ruling on the issue of liability for callsto reassigned cell phone numbers and the

meaning of “called parties.” Plaintiff contendsthat the FCC has ruled on the issue that

was subject to the Court’s stay. In addition, he should not have to wait years before a

decision is made by the appellate court. 

Discussion

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its

power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing

Landis v. N. Am.Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In determining whether to grant a

motion to stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or

refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098,

1110 (9th Cir. 2005). District courts also have discretion to lift a stay of litigation. See

Canady v. Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64, 74 (D.D.C. 2002) (“The

same court that imposes a stay of litigation has the inherent power and discretion to lift

the stay.”). “When circumstances have changed such that the court's reasons for

imposing the stay no longer exist or are inappropriate, the court may lift the stay.” Id. 

In determining whether the motion to lift the stay was ripe, the court in Canady

evaluated both “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the

parties of withholding court consideration. Id. at 75.

Here, the case was stayed in order to allow the FCC to rule on an issue that is

currently at issue in this case. On July 10, 2015, the FCC ruled on the issue and the

reason for imposing the stay no longer exists. In addition, a ruling by the D.C. Circuit

may take years and would impose a hardship on the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court

finds it appropriate to lift the stay. The Court LIFTS the stay in this case, and sets a 

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

/ / / /

- 2 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 69 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 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

telephonic status conference on October 2, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. Plaintiff shall initiate

and coordinate the conference call. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 24, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [13CV1049-GPC(DHB) ]

Case 3:13-cv-01049-GPC-DHB Document 69 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 3