UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Case 2:17-cv JAM-DB Document 20 Filed 11/28/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter is before the Court on the parties cross-motions for Summary

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : :

Case 3:12-cv GPC-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C H A MB E R O F C O M ME R C E O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S OF A M E R IC A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 2:17-cv JNP-BCW Document 29 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, Argued: January 25, 2017; Decided: June 29, Docket No.

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/17/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:18-cv CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/09/2018 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ORDER. BEFORE THE COURT are Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and

Case 9:15-cv KAM Document 167 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2017 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 0:17-cv BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2017 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS ESTRELLA, Plaintiff, v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, LP, Defendant. Case No: 8:14-cv-2624-T-27AEP

Case 1:18-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/07/2018 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:13-cv JTC Document 25 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

RE: Public Notice on Interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (CG Docket No ; CG Docket No )

Case 1:18-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/11/2018 Page 1 of 16

Case 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/20/2018 Page 1 of 15

Case 1:17-cv RMB-JS Document 59 Filed 12/20/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 731

Case 2:12-cv GW-SH Document 24 Filed 04/18/13 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:309 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

FILED 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No.: Plaintiff, v.

Case 5:16-cv AB-DTB Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:192 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:13-cv RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88

Case 3:16-cv TJC-JBT Document 44 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID 890

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 1:17-cv RJS Document 2 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 15

1:16-cv JES-JEH # 20 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv JBS-JS Document 46 Filed 08/02/18 Page 1 of 24 PageID: 383 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case3:08-cv MEJ Document239 Filed10/21/14 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I.

BANKRUPTCY LAW CENTER, APC Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. [SBN: ] Ahren A. Tiller, Esq. [SBN ]

The Kennedy Privacy Law Firm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 4:16-cv JAR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/10/16 Page: 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

[Other Attorneys of Record Listed on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 40 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

PlainSite. Legal Document. Florida Southern District Court Case No. 0:12-cv WJZ Benzion et al v. Vivint, Inc. Document 165.

Case 2:17-cv EEF-KWR Document 23 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 2:17-cv WBS-EFB Document 97 Filed 06/12/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:17-cv JBS-JS Document 26 Filed 08/02/18 Page 1 of 24 PageID: 368 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Public Notice, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Further Comment on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:18-cv RV-CJK Document 1 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Civil Case Number:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:09-cv JTC Document 28 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 11. Plaintiffs, 09-CV-982-JTC. Defendant.

Case 6:14-cv EFM Document 65 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 299 Filed: 02/13/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: Plaintiff, No. 14 CV 2028

Case 1:09-cv Document 32 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. herself and all others similarly situated, ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF S Plaintiff, ) )

United States Court of Appeals

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL. CASE NO.: CV SJO (SSx) DATE: February 27, 2017 Jalen Epps v. Earth Fare, Inc.

[Other Attorneys of Record Listed on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Telephone Consumer Protection Act: Illegal Calls to Cell Phones

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:18-cv HSG Document 38 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Case 1:05-cv WMN Document 86 Filed 10/06/2008 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No ASHLEY GAGER, Appellant DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Case 1:16-cv JG Document 124 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/14/2018 Page 1 of 36

Case3:12-cv SI Document33 Filed10/21/14 Page1 of 10

) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants, ) Nominal Defendant.

Case 2:12-cv Document 1 Filed 12/06/12 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION. v. Case No: 5:13-MC-004-WTH-PRL ORDER

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. COMMENTS OF THE COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (CCIA)

: : Plaintiff, Third-Party Plaintiff, : Third-Party Defendants. : In an Opinion and Order entered on November 28, 2017, familiarity with which is

Case 1:18-cv LY-AWA Document 12 Filed 04/18/18 Page 1 of 12

mg Doc Filed 09/13/16 Entered 09/13/16 12:39:53 Main Document Pg 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Case: 3:14-cv wmc Document #: 360 Filed: 04/20/17 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Case 1:03-cv RJS Document 206 Filed 12/10/14 Page 1 of 6. Plaintiffs, No. 03-cv-3816 (RJS) ORDER. Plaintiffs, No. 03-cv-3817 (RJS) ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : : : : : : : : : : : :

to the response may be filed unless ordered by the Court...

Nos , , PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. (ffk/a PHILIP MORRIS, INC.) and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., et al. and LORILLARD TOBACCO CO.

Case 2:16-cv SGC Document 1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 0:05-cv KAM Document 408 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2012 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Transcription:

Sherman v. Yahoo! Inc. Doc. 1 1 1 1 RAFAEL DAVID SHERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, YAHOO! INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. Case No. :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG ORDER: 1 DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkt. No..] DENYING MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Presently before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant Yahoo! Inc. ( Defendant or Yahoo!. (Dkt. No.. The Parties have fully briefed the motion. (Dkt. Nos.,,, 0,. The Court held a hearing on the matter on June 1, 1. Joshua Swigart, Esq. appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Rafael David Sherman, and Ian Ballon, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant Yahoo!. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. BACKGROUND This case concerns a text notification message that was sent to a cellular phone number as part of Yahoo! s Instant Messenger service. Plaintiff Rafael David Sherman ( Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, claiming Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA, :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG Dockets.Justia.com

1 1 1 U.S.C. (b(1(a by illegally contact[ing] Plaintiff and the Class members via their cellular telephones by using unsolicited SPAM text messages. (Dkt. No. 1, Compl.. On February, 1, this Court issued an Order denying Defendant s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 0. Specifically, the Court held that: (1 a single, confirmatory text message may be actionable under the TCPA; ( issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the issue of whether Yahoo! s PC to SMS Service constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialer System ( ATDS within the meaning of the TCPA; and ( that Good Samaritan Immunity did not render Yahoo! immune from liability in this case. (Id. On March, 1, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court s February, 1 Order. (Dkt. No.. Defendant contends the Court erred by relying on FCC commentary to construe what constitutes an ATDS under the TCPA and that new evidence warrants summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim that Yahoo! s PC to SMS Service equipment is an ATDS. (Dkt. No.. In the alternative, Defendant seeks certification of the Court s Order denying summary judgment for appeal due to conflicting constructions of the phrase ATDS among district courts in the Ninth Circuit. (Id. LEGAL STANDARD District courts have the discretion to reconsider interlocutory rulings until a final judgment is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. (b; United States v. Martin, F.d, - (th Cir. 00. While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not set forth a standard for reconsidering interlocutory rulings, the law of the case doctrine and public policy dictate that the efficient operation of the judicial system requires the avoidance of re-arguing questions that have already been decided. See Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, F.d, n. (th Cir.. As such, most courts adhere to a fairly narrow standard by which to reconsider their interlocutory rulings. This standard requires that the party show: (1 an :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG

1 1 1 intervening change in the law; ( additional evidence that was not previously available; or ( that the prior decision was based on clear error or would work manifest injustice. Id.; Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 1 F.d, 0 (th Cir. 0; Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., F.d, 1 (th Cir.. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources. Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, F.d, 0 (th Cir. 00. A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to renew arguments considered and rejected by the court, nor is it an opportunity for a party to re-argue a motion because it is dissatisfied with the original outcome. FTC v. Neovi, Inc., 0 WL at * (S.D. Cal. Jan., 0 (quoting Devinsky v. Kingsford, 0 WL 0 at * (S.D.N.Y. July, 0. DISCUSSION I. Reconsideration Defendant brings the present motion seeking reconsideration solely as to the Court s conclusion that issues of fact preclude summary judgment on Plaintiff s claim that Yahoo! s PC to SMS service equipment constituted an automatic telephone dialing system within the meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA, U.S.C.. (Dkt. No.. Under the TCPA, an automatic telephone dialing system ( ATDS is defined as equipment which has the capacity (A to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B to dial such numbers. U.S.C. (a(1. Defendant argues reconsideration is warranted on two grounds: (1 that the Court erred in relying on Federal Communications Commission ( FCC commentary regarding predictive dialers to construe the statutory term ATDS ; and ( that the Court erred in relying on Yahoo! s testimony regarding its ability to write or install new software to dial telephone numbers to deny summary judgment. (Dkt. No. -1. Having reviewed the Parties arguments and the applicable legal authority, the Court :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG

1 1 1 finds no basis for granting the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration. A. FCC Commentary on Predictive Dialers Defendant first argues the Court erred in construing the term ATDS according to FCC guidance on predictive dialers because the Ninth Circuit has held in Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., F.d, 1 (th Cir. 0, that the statutory definition of ATDS is clear and unambiguous, and therefore deference to the FCC guidance under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., U.S. (, would be inappropriate. (Dkt. No. -1 at. Defendant argues the Court s citation to FCC rulings beyond the plain meaning of the TCPA thus constituted clear error. (Id. The Court disagrees. This Court s construction of ATDS is premised on the statutory text of the TCPA as interpreted by the Satterfield court. (See Dkt. No. 0 at -1 (citing Satterfield for the proposition that the focus of the ATDS inquiry is on whether the equipment has the capacity to store and dial phone numbers. In Satterfield, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Simon and Schuster, Inc., finding that the district court focused its analysis on the wrong issue in its determination of what constitutes an ATDS. F.d at 1. The Ninth Circuit found that, when courts evaluate whether equipment is an ATDS under the TCPA, the statute s clear language mandates that the focus must be on whether the equipment has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator. Id. (emphasis in original. Although the court concluded that the statutory text is clear and unambiguous, the court did so in the context of finding that the statute clearly and unambiguously focuses on the equipment s requisite capacity rather than present functionality. Id. Ultimately, it is unnecessary to rely on the FCC guidance on predictive dialers to reach the result arrived at in this case. Furthermore, to the extent that the Defendant complains of the Court s citation to the FCC commentary, the Ninth Circuit has itself cited the same FCC regulations :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG

1 1 1 regarding predictive dialers in defining an ATDS. Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 0 F.d, (th Cir. 1 (citing In the Matter of Rules & Regs Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1, FCC Rcd. 1, 1- (July, 0. In the alternative, Defendant argues the Court erred in relying on the FCC s definition of ATDS to include predictive dialers because of evidence since obtained in another case. (Dkt. No. -1 at. Specifically, Defendant argues Plaintiff s expert testified in Benzion v. Vivint, Inc., No. 1-cv-WJZ (S.D. Fla., that there s no such thing as predictive dialing in text. (Id. As such, Defendant argues the Court erred in relying on the FCC s guidance related to predictive dialers. (Id. at -. This argument also fails to show clear error in the Court s prior Order. Although the Court cited FCC rules and regulations related to predictive dialers in its Order denying summary judgment, the Court did not rest its conclusion regarding the Parties ATDS showing on a finding that Defendant s equipment was or was not a predictive dialer. (See Dkt. No. 0 at 1. The Court cited to the FCC s rulings regarding predictive dialers to support the proposition that equipment may fall under the statutory definition of ATDS without the present functionality of randomly or sequentially generating numbers to be called. (Id. at. The focus of the Court s analysis was on the Parities respective evidence as to whether Yahoo! s server and system had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator. (Dkt. No. 0 at -1 (citing Satterfield, F.d at 1 ( [T]he statute s clear language mandates that the focus must be on whether the equipment has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.. Having reviewed the Parties respective evidence regarding the statutorily mandated capacity, the Court found that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 0 at 1. Defendant s newly proffered evidence that Plaintiffs expert has testified in another case that there is no :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG

1 1 1 such thing as predictive dialing in text is therefore inapposite and fails to show clear error in the Court s previous Order. B. Present versus Future Capacity Defendant next argues the Court erred in relying on Yahoo! s testimony regarding its ability to write or install new software to dial telephone numbers to deny summary judgment, because subsequent case law makes clear that the mere ability to write or install new software does not, as a matter of law, make Yahoo! s system an ATDS under [the TCPA]. (Dkt. No. -1 at (citing Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., Inc., F. Supp. d, No. C1-0RSL, 1 WL at *- (W.D. Wash. Feb., 1. As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant s new proffered authority, as district court opinion, does not qualify as an intervening change in the controlling law sufficient to justify reconsideration. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, F.d, 0 (th Cir. 00 (citing Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, F.d, (th Cir.. However, having considered the Gragg court s reasoned disagreement with this Court s holding, the Court finds itself nonetheless bound by Ninth Circuit precedent to the contrary and finds no clear error in its February, 1 Order denying Yahoo! s motion for summary judgment. In particular, the Gragg court held that the statutory definition of ATDS focuses on the system s present, not potential, capacity to store, produce, or call randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers. 1 WL at * (emphasis in original. In further denying the plaintiff s motion for reconsideration, the Gragg court specifically rejected this Court s February, 1 Order, finding that [t]here is no indication that the Ninth Circuit would deem a system that has to be reprogrammed or have new software installed in order to perform the functions of an ATDS to be an ATDS. Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., Inc., No. C1-0RSL, 1 WL 0 at * (W.D. Wash. Feb., 1. As Yahoo! has argued, two other district courts applying Ninth Circuit law have found similarly. See Hunt v. st Mortg. Corp., No. :1-CV--WMA, 1 WL 001 at * (N.D. Ala. Sept. :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG

1 1 1, 1 (holding that to meet the TCPA definition of an [ATDS], a system must have a present capacity, at the time the calls were being made, to store or produce and call numbers from a number generator ; Dominguez v. Yahoo! Inc., F. Supp. d, 1 WL 01 (E.D. Pa. March, 1. This Court respectfully disagrees. In Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, No. C 0- CW, 0 WL 0 at * (N.D. Cal. June, 0, the district court granted summary judgment to defendant Simon & Schuster, concluding that the plain language of the TCPA precluded a finding that Simon & Schuster s equipment was an ATDS where the parties did not dispute that the equipment at issue did not store, produce or call randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court s conclusion, emphasizing that the focus must be on the equipment s capacity rather than whether the equipment actually stored, produced, or called randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, F.d, 1 (th Cir. 0. Furthermore, in Meyer v. Portfolio Recover Associates, LLC, 0 F.d, (th Cir. 1, the Ninth Circuit specifically considered and rejected a defendant s argument that its dialers did not fall within the statutory definition of ATDS because its dialers did not have the present capacity to store or produce 1 numbers using a random or sequential number generator. See Meyer v. Portfolio Recover Associates, LLC, Case No. -00, Dkt. No. -1 (appellant s opening brief at (th Cir. filed Oct. 1, (arguing that [t]he question at issue is the present capacity of [defendant s] dialers to store and produce numbers using a random and sequential number generator, not what theoretical, future capacity could be possible if 1 The Court notes that the defendant in Meyer had argued to the district court that it would be required to invest significant resources to change the dialers to achieve [the capacity to store or produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator]. (Meyer v. Portfolio Recover Associates, LLC, Case No. -cv-0-jah- BGS, Dkt. No. at (S.D. Cal. filed May 1,. The defendant then presented the same argument to the Ninth Circuit. (Meyer v. Portfolio Recover Associates, LLC, Case No. -00, Dkt. No. -1 at (th Cir. filed Oct. 1, ( [defendant] would be required to invest significant resources to change its dialers to achieve that capacity, and it would make no sense for [defendant s] business to do so.. :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG

1 1 1 significant time and resources were spent by PRA to modify its dialers (emphasis in original. In rejecting the defendant s argument, the court reaffirmed its previous holding in Satterfield that the TCPA focuses on the equipment s capacity rather than present use. Meyer, 0 F.d at. The court further found that because the defendant used its equipment as a predictive dialer, which the FCC has found has the requisite capacity, the district court did not err in finding the plaintiff had demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits sufficient for a preliminary injunction. Id. (citing In the Matter of Rules & Regs Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1, FCC Rcd. 1, 1- (July, 0. This Court therefore finds the clear mandate from the Ninth Circuit requires a defendant challenging a plaintiff s ATDS showing on a motion for summary judgment to demonstrate that no genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the equipment at issue has the requisite current and future capacity to act as an ATDS in order to warrant summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court finds no clear error in its previous conclusion that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Yahoo! s equipment has the requisite capacity to be considered an ATDS under the TCPA. Defendant s motion for reconsideration, (Dkt. No., must be DENIED. II. Interlocutory Appeal District courts may certify an issue for interlocutory appeal upon satisfaction of certain criteria. U.S.C. 1(b. Those criteria are: (1 the order involves a controlling question of law; ( there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and ( an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. In re Cement Antitrust Litig., F.d, (th Cir.. Courts apply section 1(b s requirements strictly, and grant motions for certification only when exceptional circumstances warrant immediate appeal. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, U.S., (. The party seeking certification to appeal an interlocutory order has the burden of establishing the existence of such :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG

1 1 1 exceptional circumstances. Id. Even then, a court has substantial discretion in deciding whether to grant a party s motion for certification. Zulewski v. Hershey Co., 1 WL 1, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar., 1. Having considered the foregoing criteria, the Court finds that no exceptional circumstances warrant interlocutory review. The Court notes that it denied summary judgment on the issue of whether Yahoo! s server and system constitutes and ATDS because it finds that genuine issues of fact preclude summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 0. Thus, even if the Ninth Circuit ultimately reviews this Court s February, 1 Order, the Ninth Circuit will be more able to do so with a complete factual record. See McFarlin v. Conseco Servs., LLC, 1 F.d, 1 (th Cir. 0 ( 1(b appeals were intended, and should be reserved, for situations in which the court of appeals can rule on a pure, controlling question of law without having to delve beyond the surface of the record in order to determine the facts.. Furthermore, to the extent that Yahoo! disagrees with the Court s interpretation of this circuit s controlling law, Judge Lasnik in the Western District of Washington has certified an interlocutory appeal in Gragg v. Orange Cab Co. Inc., No. C1-0RSL, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Wash. Apr., 1, on the question of the proper interpretation of has the capacity in the context of the TCPA s definition of ATDS. (See Dkt. No. -1, Chang Decl. Ex. 1. As such, the Court will deny Defendants alternative request to certify the February, 1 Order for interlocutory appeal. CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Yahoo! Inc. s Motion for Reconsideration, (Dkt. No., is DENIED. Yahoo! Inc. s request, in the alternative, for interlocutory appeal is also DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July, 1 HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL United States District Judge :1-cv-1-GPC-WVG