Filed: Sep. 27, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY Re: Dkt. No. 208 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . On July 15, 2015, Defendants moved to stay the this action pending resolution of (1) McKesson's Petition with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") for retroactive waiver of opt-out notices for solicited faxes, and (2) the D.C. Circuit's resolution of consolidated appeals of the FCC's October 30, 2014 order. Dkt. No. 208. A court, in evaluating a motion to stay, must weigh the compe
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY Re: Dkt. No. 208 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . On July 15, 2015, Defendants moved to stay the this action pending resolution of (1) McKesson's Petition with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") for retroactive waiver of opt-out notices for solicited faxes, and (2) the D.C. Circuit's resolution of consolidated appeals of the FCC's October 30, 2014 order. Dkt. No. 208. A court, in evaluating a motion to stay, must weigh the compet..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY Re: Dkt. No. 208
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.
On July 15, 2015, Defendants moved to stay the this action pending resolution of (1) McKesson's Petition with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") for retroactive waiver of opt-out notices for solicited faxes, and (2) the D.C. Circuit's resolution of consolidated appeals of the FCC's October 30, 2014 order. Dkt. No. 208.
A court, in evaluating a motion to stay, must weigh the competing interests at stake. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.3d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Among the competing interests are: (1) the possible damage that may result from a stay; (2) the hardship or inequity a party may suffer by being required to proceed; and (3) the stay's potential effect on the orderly course of justice, measured in terms of simplifying or complicating issues, proof, and questions of law. Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005).
The first basis for the stay is moot. The FCC granted the petition for a retroactive waiver on August 28, 2015. See In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 F.C.C. Rcd. 8598, 8613 (2015). Moreover, having weighed the competing interests identified in Lockyer, the Court finds that on balance a stay pending resolution of the appeals before the D.C. Circuit is not appropriate. The motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
