United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
RONALD S.W. LEW, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant USAA Savings Bank's
(“Defendant”) Motion to Stay Proceedings
(“Motion”) pending the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA
Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, Appeal No.
15-1211 (D.C. Circuit) (filed on Oct. 13, 2015) . The
Court, having reviewed all papers and arguments submitted
pertaining to this Motion, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS:
Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings is GRANTED.
action arises from Plaintiff David Doerken's
(“Plaintiff”) claims that Defendant violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47
U.S.C. § 227 and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code. §
1788. See Compl., ECF No. 1.
is an individual who resides in Los Angeles County,
California. Id. at ¶ 5. Defendant is a bank
with its principal place of business in Texas. Id.
at ¶ 9.
attempted to collect a debt that Plaintiff allegedly owed.
Id. at ¶ 11. Plaintiff alleges between May 2016
and June 2016, Defendant called Plaintiff more than
forty-four times in its attempt to collect the debt.
Id. at ¶ 13. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff told a
representative of Defendant that he unequivocally revoked
Defendant's consent to contact him on his cellular phone;
however, between June 28, 2016, and August 4, 2016, Defendant
allegedly contacted Plaintiff at least seventy-five
additional times. Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.
further alleges that Defendant called him using an automatic
telephone dialing system (“ATDS”), which violates
the TCPA. Id. at ¶¶ 21-22. Plaintiff also
alleges these calls violated the RFDCPA. Defendant denies its
dialing system meets the definition of an ATDS and therefore
it lacks liability under the TCPA. Def.'s Mot. to Stay
Proceedings (“Mot.”) 1:20-21, ECF No. 20.
November 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against
Defendant . On January 4, 2017, Defendant filed its Answer
. On February 10, 2017, Defendant filed an Amended Answer
with Plaintiff's stipulation correcting Defendant's
name from USAA Federal Savings Bank to USAA Savings Bank
. On February 21, 2017, Defendant filed the instant
Motion . On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Opposition
 and Plaintiff's Reply followed on March 13, 2017
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)). A court may “find it . . . efficient for
its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to
enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of
independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d
857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). The rule applies to judicial
proceedings and does not require the issues of such
proceedings be necessarily controlling of the action before
the court. Id. at 863-64. A stay should not be
granted unless it appears likely that the other proceedings
will be concluded within a reasonable time in ...