Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOMINIQUE NELSON, individually and Case No.: 25-CV-1470 JLS (AHG) on behalf of similarly situated individuals, 12 ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART Plaintiff, 13 AND DENYING IN PART v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY 14 PROCEEDINGS AND (2) REDDIT, INC., a Delaware corporation, 15 GRANTING DEFENDANT’S Defendant. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 16 17 (ECF Nos. 31, 31-1) 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Stay (“Mot.,” ECF No. 31) and 21 supporting Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN,” ECF No. 31-1). Also before the Court are 22 Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 34) and Defendant’s Reply in 23 Support of the Motion (“Reply,” ECF No. 36). The Court took these matters under 24 submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7.1(d)(1). After reviewing 25 the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 26 PART Defendant’s Motion to Stay and GRANTS Defendant’s RJN. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 The factual background is well known to the Parties and the Court; accordingly, the 3 Court does not repeat it here in full but rather incorporates by reference the factual 4 background as detailed in the Court’s February 17, 2026, Order. See ECF No. 26 (the 5 “Order”) at 2–4. 6 In summary, Plaintiff’s claims stem from the California Invasion of Privacy Act 7 (“CIPA”), specifically the Pen Register Act. Cal. Penal Code § 638.51. Plaintiff alleges 8 the installation of a LiveRamp tracker on a user’s browser qualifies as using a pen register. 9 Compl., ECF No. 1, Ex. A, at ¶ 21. Plaintiff sued in state court under § 637.2(a)(1), which 10 allows individuals to bring an action against any violator of CIPA provisions. Id. at 11 ¶ 16,63. 12 It is unsettled whether Section 638.51 applies to online tracking technologies. 13 Compare, e.g., Fregosa v. Mashable, Inc., No. 25-cv-01094-CRM, 2025 WL 2886399, at 14 *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025) with Rodriguez v. Plivo, No. 24STCV08972, 2024 WL 15 5184413, at *2 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2024). In fact, after this litigation commenced, 16 appellate proceedings on this issue began in Variety Media, LLC v. The Superior Court of 17 Los Angeles County. See RJN, ECF No. 31, Ex. A (Pet. for Writ. Of Mandate, Variety 18 Media LLC v. Cal. Super. Ct., No. B350578 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025). There, the 19 California Court of Appeal will squarely address if Section 638.51 applies to online 20 tracking technologies. Mot. at 15. 21 Additionally, the Ninth Circuit accepted an appeal in Drummer v. CoStar Grp. to 22 determine if the transmission of IP addresses to third parties constitutes an injury sufficient 23 for Article III standing. 5:25-cv-01047-JGB-SP, 2026 WL 712922, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24 13, 2026); RJN, ECF No. 31, Ex. H (CoStar, appeal certified and docketed, No. 26-1652 25 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2026), Dkt. No. 3). On June 22, 2026, the Ninth Circuit stayed the 26 appellate proceedings until resolution of Variety Media. Order, Drummer v. CoStar, No. 27 26-1652 (9th Cir. Jun. 22, 2026), Dkt. No. 29. 28 1 On April 14, 2026, Defendant filed the present Motion seeking a stay of the 2 proceedings pending the resolution of the two lawsuits. See Mot. Plaintiff opposes such a 3 stay. See Opp’n. 4 DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 5 As an initial matter, in support of his Motion, Defendant requests judicial notice of 6 various public records filed on the dockets of the California Court of Appeal, California 7 Superior Court, Central District of California, and Ninth Circuit. See generally RJN. 8 “Judicial notice under Rule 201 permits a court to notice an adjudicative fact if it is ‘not 9 subject to reasonable dispute.’” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 10 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2615 (2019). “A 11 fact is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute’ if it is ‘generally known,’ or ‘can be accurately 12 and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’” 13 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1)–(2)). “Accordingly, ‘[a] court may take judicial notice 14 of matters of public record.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 15 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001)). “But a court cannot take judicial notice of disputed 16 facts contained in such public records.” Id. (quoting Lee, 250 F.3d at 689). 17 Because “filings and orders in other court proceedings[] are judicially noticeable for 18 certain purposes, such as to demonstrate the existence of other court proceedings,” Missud 19 v. Nevada, 861 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201), aff’d, 20 520 F. App’x 534 (9th Cir. 2013), the Court finds it appropriate to judicially notice the 21 existence of public records from the California Court of Appeal, California Superior Court, 22 Central District of California, and Ninth Circuit, particularly given that Plaintiffs do not 23 oppose Defendant’s request. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Request for 24 Judicial Notice. 25 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 26 I. Legal Standard 27 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court 28 to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 1 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In 2 the interests of judicial economy, a court may grant a stay pending the outcome of other 3 legal proceedings related to the case. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 4 857, 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979). When determining whether to stay an action, a court must 5 weigh competing interests that the grant or denial of a stay will affect, including: 6 (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay;” (2) “the hardship 7 or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward;” and (3) “the orderly 8 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 9 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 10 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). “If there is even a fair 11 possibility that the stay for which [the movant] prays for will work damage to someone 12 else,” the movant “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being required to 13 go forward.” Id. (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). “The proponent of a stay bears the 14 burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 15 299 U.S. at 255). 16 II. Analysis 17 Defendant asks this Court to stay proceedings until the California Court of Appeal 18 determines if § 638.51 applies to online technology or if it is limited to telephonic 19 technology. Mot. at 9; Opp’n at 2. Plaintiff concedes the decision in Variety Media will 20 likely provide guidance as to the merits of claims and the scope of discovery but argues a 21 decision for the petitioner would still require the Parties to conduct discovery as to the 22 underlying facts of Defendant’s tracking technology. Opp’n at 1–2. 23 Defendant further argues proceedings should be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit 24 determination on whether pen register claims based on IP address collection alone— 25 without further harm—satisfies Article III standing. Reply at 7. Plaintiff argues a stay is 26 not justified because Defendant bears the burden of proving Article III standing on a case 27 removed from state court. Opp’n at 3. 28 / / / 1 A. The Balance of Hardship or Inequity Between Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 First, the Court must balance the “possible damage [to Plaintiffs] which may result 3 from the granting of a stay,” with “the hardship or inequity which [Defendants] may suffer 4 in being required to go forward.” CMAX, 300 F.2d at 268. In this case, the hardships 5 presented by each proceeding differ. 6 Plaintiff contends he will face “significant and real prejudice” if the Court issues a 7 stay. Opp’n at 4–5. Plaintiff first contends the stay is effectively indefinite because “it is 8 entirely unknown when the appellate court in either case will ultimately issue its opinion.” 9 Id. With regards to Variety Media, the Court finds that because the California Court of 10 Appeal has accepted the petition and heard oral argument, any wait for an answer to this 11 question would be neither indefinite nor unreasonable. See Burnell v. Swift Transportation 12 Co., No. EDCV 10-000809 VAP (OPX), 2011 WL 13352810, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 13 2011) (finding a stay pending a California Supreme Court decision not yet scheduled for 14 oral argument was not indefinite). 15 But in CoStar, the balance shifts. Here, the Ninth Circuit has already stayed the 16 proceedings pending a resolution in Variety Media. See Order, CoStar, No. 26-1652 (9th 17 Cir. Jun. 22, 2026), Dkt. No. 29. The Court finds Plaintiff’s concerns regarding 18 indefiniteness more compelling when the present stay is dependent on proceedings that are 19 themselves stayed. Stays generally should not be indefinite and should not be granted 20 unless it is likely the other proceeding will be concluded within a reasonable time. 21 Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 22 2007). It is true the Ninth Circuit proceedings depend on the same lawsuit contemplated 23 in the present motion. But the Court finds a stay pending a stay is too attenuated. 1 A stay 24 pending the decision in CoStar would be unreasonably indefinite. 25 / / / 26 27 1 Further, the Ninth Circuit schedule is dependent on additional considerations that may or may not be 28 applicable here. See Status Report, CoStar, No. 26-1652 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2026), Dkt. No. 30 (raising 1 Plaintiff also argues a stay would present the danger of having critical evidence 2 deleted. Opp’n at 3. While the Court understands Plaintiff’s fear, he presents no evidence 3 this fear will materialize. To the extent Plaintiff argues spoilation by Defendant, the Court 4 finds the risk small since Defendant is “aware of its obligations and should have already 5 instituted a litigation hold to preserve documents that may be relevant to this litigation.” 6 Sealey v. Chase Bank (U.S.A.), N.A., No. 19-cv-07710-JST, 2020 WL 5814108, at *2 (N.D. 7 Cal. Sept. 29, 2020) (quoting Canady v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corp., No. CV-19-04738- 8 PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 5249263, at *3–4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 3, 2020)). As always, the Court 9 expects all parties to abide by their obligation to preserve information in their possession, 10 custody, or control that may be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s defenses. 11 However, Plaintiff raises legitimate concerns that much of the relevant information 12 is held by third parties—such as LiveRamp—and could be destroyed. Opp’n at 4. To 13 alleviate this potential, Defendant suggests that Plaintiff send preservation letters to third 14 parties at issue. See Reply at 7. If Plaintiff does not believe doing so will resolve the issue 15 of third-party evidentiary preservation, the Court permits Plaintiffs to seek a limited 16 modification of the stay order to allow Plaintiffs to issue subpoenas to the third parties. See 17 Washington v. Trump, No. C17-0141JLP, 2017 WL 2172020, at *4 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 18 2017). 19 Turning to the potential prejudice from proceeding without a stay, Defendant 20 contends moving forward without a clear answer on either the applicability of the Pen 21 Register Act to online technology or the sufficiency of injury could “lead to inefficiencies 22 and a waste of resources for both the parties and the Court.” Reply at 4 (quoting Ludlow 23 v. Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 18-CV-1190 JLS (JLB), 2020 WL 773253, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 24 Feb. 18, 2020). The Court agrees the outcome in Variety Media will not just dictate the 25 scope of discovery but may eliminate the claim at issue. Reply at 5; cf. Weisbein v. 26 Allergan, Inc., 2020 WL 6555051, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020) (denying the stay because 27 “although the nature of discovery . . . may change in some ways . . ., the court is 28 unconvinced the entire action should be stayed for that reason alone”). Conducting 1 discovery without a clear answer would cause unnecessary work for the Parties, amounting 2 to a hardship in this case. 3 However, the issue presented in CoStar is less crucial to Plaintiff’s claims. Although 4 Defendant rightly states there is “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on the 5 sufficiency of injury, Mot. at 18, resolution does not alter the underlying state law claims 6 and does not raise the same likelihood of inefficiency and wasted resources. See Reply at 7 3. 8 Having weighed the Parties potential hardships, the Court finds Plaintiff has not 9 shown a “fair possibility” that a stay pending resolution in Variety Media will cause 10 prejudice, while Defendant has made a “clear case of hardship” absent a stay. See CMAX, 11 300 F.2d at 268. However, Plaintiff has shown a “fair possibility” that a stay pending 12 resolution in CoStar will cause prejudice, while Defendant has not made a “clear case of 13 hardship” absent a stay. See id. 14 B. The Orderly Course of Justice 15 Next, the Court must consider “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of 16 the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be 17 expected to result from a stay.” Id. When state proceedings will “simplify many of the 18 issues before the Court due to the overlapping nature of the claims,” this factor weighs in 19 favor of a stay. Sanchez v. Green Messengers, Inc., 666 F. Supp. 3d 1047, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 20 2023). However, a stay is inappropriate when the other proceeding is “unlikely to decide, 21 or to contribute to the decision of, the factual and legal issues before the district court.” 22 Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1113 (9th Cir. 2005). 23 Defendant contends waiting for the appellate decision at the heart of Variety Media 24 would clarify issues, proof, and questions of law central to this case. Mot. at 20. According 25 to Defendant, the viability of Plaintiff’s claim depends on this decision. Id. Further, even 26 if the decision is not dispositive, “[its] holdings and reasoning may significantly impact the 27 strength of the parties’ arguments and the scope and direction of discovery, all of which 28 warrant a stay.” Id. at 22. Plaintiff disagrees. He argues the specifics of the Variety Media 1 ruling will likely require discovery to the underlying facts of the operative technology— 2 discovery that could be conducted while the ruling is pending. Opp’n at 2. 3 On the facts of this case, the Court finds that “the prospect of narrowing the factual 4 and legal issues . . . justifies a stay” pending the decision in Variety Media. Cf. Lockyer, 5 398 F.3d at 1112. Although it is not certain the decision will settle every question of fact 6 and law, staying the litigation until the question of applicability for online technology is 7 decided will further the orderly course of justice, promote judicial economy, and avoid the 8 waste of judicial and party resources. 9 Finally, Defendant contends the decision in CoStar may confirm Plaintiff lacks 10 Article III standing to continue the present case. Mot. at 9. Plaintiff argues even if the 11 Ninth Circuit rules this way, discovery will not be duplicative since it would be carried 12 over into the state court proceeding. Id. at 3–4. On the whole, this issue does not have the 13 same effect on the orderly course of justice as the issue at the heart of Variety Media. A 14 ruling from the Ninth Circuit would not alter Plaintiff’s underlying state law claim. As 15 stated by Plaintiff, the danger of wasted time and effort is less when compared to Variety 16 Media. Resp. at 2–3. 17 The Court finds this factor supports a stay pending resolution in Variety Media 18 because the decision in Variety Media will simplify the issues to be decided by the Court 19 in this litigation. However, the Court finds this factor does not support a stay pending 20 resolution in CoStar. 21 C. The Overall Balance Favors Granting the Stay 22 After considering each of the required factors, the Court finds that a stay pending 23 the decision in Variety Media is appropriate because the “weighing of the hardships favors 24 the granting of a stay” and “it will serve the interests of judicial economy by allowing for 25 development of . . . [a potentially dispositive] legal issue[].” See Cal. Trout, Inc. v. U.S. 26 Bureau of Reclamation, 115 F. Supp. 3d 1102, 1117 (C.D. Cal. 2015). 27 Granting a stay when Variety Media is dispositive of all claims is consistent with the 28 approach taken by other federal courts. See, e.g., Camplisson v. Adidas America, Inc., No. 1 }}25-CV-00603-GPC-GC, 2026 WL 2521849, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2026) (granting a 2 || stay pending Variety Media); Haviland v. Rokt US Corp., No. 26-cv-00582-DJC-AC, 2026 3 || WL 2279746, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2026) (granting a stay); cf Spears v. The Campbell's 4 || Company, 2026 WL 2654729, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2026) (denying a stay because 5 || Variety Media affects only one claim). The Court therefore exercises its discretion to grant 6 stay pending the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Variety Media. 7 The Court finds a stay pending the decision in CoStar would be inappropriate. 8 || Considering each of the required factors, the Court finds the danger of an indefinite stay 9 || outweighs the interests of judicial economy. Dependable Highway Exp., Inc., 498 F.3d at 10 || 1066-67. Rulings on stays pending CoStar are less numerous and less consistent. 11 || Compare Anderson vy. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, No. 25-cv-11576-MWC-MBK, 12 || 2026 WL 2078178, at *2—3 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2026) (denying a stay) with D’Antonio v. 13 || Cable News Network, Inc., No. 24 CV 3132 (VM), 2026 WL 1815527, at *3 (June 24, 14 || 2026) (granting a stay). The Court finds any prejudice Defendant would face is outweighed 15 || by other interests detailed above. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants Request for Judicial Notice 18 || (ECF No. 31-1), and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants’ Motion 19 Stay (ECF No. 31). The Court STAYS this matter pending the California Court of 20 || Appeal’s decision in Variety Media. 21 The Parties SHALL FILE a Joint Status Brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages, no more 22 fourteen (14) days after the California Court of Appeal renders a decision. The joint 23 || status report SHALL INCLUDE specific proposals as to how the Parties wish to proceed 24 || with the case at bar in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 14, 2026 . tt f te 27 on. Janis L. Sammartino 28 United States District Judge