Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03105/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03105-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aerotek, Inc.
Defendant
Jose Rubio-Delgado
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

JOSE RUBIO-DELGADO, SHALANDA 

BURGESS, AND HARRIETTA HUBBARD, 

INDIVIDUALLY, ON BEHALF OF OTHER 

SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, 

AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL 

PUBLIC, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

AEROTEK, INC., 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 13-cv-03105-SC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO STAY 

Now before the Court is Defendant Aerotek's motion to stay. 

ECF No. 62. The motion is unopposed. ECF No. 65. The motion is 

appropriate for resolution without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-

1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff's putative class action for statutory damages based 

on an alleged willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

("FCRA") will be potentially disposed of by decisions in cases 

pending in the United States Supreme Court and one pending in the 

Ninth Circuit. First, the pending Ninth Circuit appeal in Syed v. 

M-1, LLC, No. 14-17186 (9th Cir. 2014), will decide whether the 

Case 3:13-cv-03105-CRB Document 67 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 2
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 

inclusion of a liability release in a disclosure or authorization 

form such as the one Aerotek provided Plaintiff here can establish 

a "willful" FCRA violation -- one of Plaintiff's key contentions. 

Second, the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 

S. Ct. 1892, No. 13-1339 (2015) is likely to bear on whether this 

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim since 

he claims to have Article III standing under FCRA by virtue of 

Congress having authorized suit based on a bare violation of a 

federal statute. 

Accordingly, this action is stayed in its entirety. Upon a 

final decision being rendered by the Ninth Circuit in Syed or the 

Supreme Court in Spokeo, whichever is earlier, Counsel shall meet 

and confer promptly on whether the stay should remain in effect 

pending whichever case remains to be resolved, or whether some 

other action is warranted. Counsel shall promptly request a status 

conference and provide the Court an updated status conference 

report seven (7) days in advance of that conference. The stay 

hereby ordered will lift seven days after the status conference, 

unless the Court issues a further stay. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated: September 22, 2015 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:13-cv-03105-CRB Document 67 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 2