From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartranft v. Encore Capital Grp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 30, 2020
Case No.: 18-cv-1187-BEN (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2020)

Opinion

Case No.: 18-cv-1187-BEN (RBB)

07-30-2020

SEAN HARTRANFT, Plaintiff, v. ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL IN APPEAL NO. 19-56390

[Dkt. No. 28]

After filing this case, Plaintiff moved to intervene in Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") proceedings being managed by the Honorable Michael M. Anello in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Case No. 11-MD-2286-MMA (MDD). Plaintiff's motion to intervene was denied and Plaintiff appealed. The appeal is now fully briefed and awaiting oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Appeal No. 19-56390.

At the same time, the parties in the MDL proceedings before Judge Anello have asked for a stay pending the decision in a case recently granted certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). See Facebook Inc. v. Duguid, Supreme Court Dkt. No. 19-511, cert. granted (July 9, 2020). The TCPA is a basis for the Plaintiff's claims in both the MDL cases and this case.

Courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings incident to their power to control their own docket. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Stays are often granted when the resolution of another action bears upon the case, because a stay is most "efficient for [the court's] own docket and the fairest course for the parties[.]" Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 253 (1936) (holding that a stay may be warranted where the resolution of other litigation may "assist in the determination of the questions of law involved.").

To conserve judicial resources and in the exercise of its discretion, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Stay the immediate action and proceedings until a decision is reached in the Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 19-56390, In re: Sean Hartranft v. Midland Funding, LLC. Counsel for Plaintiff shall notify this Court within seven days of a decision in its appeal. All further proceedings in this case are stayed.

DATED: July 30, 2020

/s/_________

Roger T. Benitez

United States District Court Judge


Summaries of

Hartranft v. Encore Capital Grp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 30, 2020
Case No.: 18-cv-1187-BEN (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2020)
Case details for

Hartranft v. Encore Capital Grp.

Case Details

Full title:SEAN HARTRANFT, Plaintiff, v. ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 30, 2020

Citations

Case No.: 18-cv-1187-BEN (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2020)