Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:1442
`
`
`Moez M. Kaba, State Bar No. 257456
`mkaba@hueston.com
`Joseph A. Reiter, State Bar No. 294976
`jreiter@hueston.com
`Ashley M. Artmann, State Bar No. 319374
`aartmann@hueston.com
`Joseph W. Crusham, State Bar No. 324764
`jcrusham@hueston.com
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`523 West 6th Street, Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90014
`Telephone: (213) 788-4340
`Facsimile:
`(888) 775-0898
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Ring LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`In re Ring LLC Privacy Litigation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This document relates to all cases.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:19-CV-10899-MWF-RAO
`
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`Date:
`August 16, 2021
`Time:
`10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom: 5A
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 1 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:1443
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1
`A STAY PENDING APPEAL IS WARRANTED .......................................... 3
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Ring’s Appeal Will Raise Serious Legal Questions .............................. 5
`C.
`Ring Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent A Stay .............................. 10
`D.
`The Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs Will Not Be Prejudiced By A
`Stay ....................................................................................................... 12
`The Public Interest Favors Granting A Stay ........................................ 13
`E.
`III. A STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE PURCHASER
`PLAINTIFFS’ ARBITRATIONS IS WARRANTED ................................... 14
`A.
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 15
`B.
`The Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Factually And
`Legally Identical To The Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Claims ....................... 16
`The Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Claims Depend On And Are
`Inseparable From the Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Claims ............................. 17
`D. A Stay Will Avoid Inconsistent Rulings Within
`Households ........................................................................................... 19
`A Stay Will Promote Judicial Economy .............................................. 20
`E.
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 22
`
`C.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- i -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:1444
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Cases
`Alascom, Inc. v. ITT N. Elec. Co.,
`727 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1984) .................................................................... 2, 10
`Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp.,
`861 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 10
`Aviles v. Quik Pick Express, LLC,
`No. 15-CV-5214-MWF, 2016 WL 6902458 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25,
`2016) ........................................................................................................ passim
`B.F. v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-910-RAJ, 2020 WL 3548010 (W.D. Wash. May 15,
`2020) ................................................................................................. 6, 9, 11, 12
`Bain v. Film Indep., Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-4126 PA (JEMX), 2018 WL 6930770 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
`11, 2018) ................................................................................................... 16, 18
`Ballard v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.,
`No. C06-5256 FDB, 2006 WL 2380668 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16,
`2006) ............................................................................................. 15, 16, 19, 21
`Bischoff v. DirecTV, Inc.,
`180 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................... 20, 21
`Bradshaw v. City of Los Angeles,
`No. 19-CV-06661-VAP-JC, 2020 WL 2065007 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
`23, 2020) ......................................................................................................... 21
`Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp.,
`916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990) .......................................................................... 4
`Chan v. Charter Commc’ns Holding Co.,
`No. 15-CV-0886-JGB, 2015 WL 12655701 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6,
`2015) ................................................................................................................. 6
`Chen v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
`No. CV 19-6941-MWF (SK), 2020 WL 4561658 (C.D. Cal. Mar.
`31, 2020) ................................................................................................... 19, 21
`- ii -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`6008651
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 30 Page ID #:1445
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Congdon v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`
`226 F. Supp. 3d 983 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................... 20
`Cty. of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,
`47 Cal. App. 4th 237 (1996) ............................................................................. 6
`Doyle v. Giuliucci,
`401 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1965) ...................................................................................... 7
`Hansen v. Rock Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-00179-KJM, 2020 WL 3867652 (E.D. Cal. July 9,
`2020) ................................................................................................... 1, 4, 9, 14
`Hofer v. Emley,
`No. 19-CV-02205-JSC, 2019 WL 4575389 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20,
`2019) ................................................................................................................. 8
`Jones v. Deutsche Bank AG,
`No. 04-CV-05357-JW, 2007 WL 1456041 (N.D. Cal. May 17,
`2007) ............................................................................................................. 5, 9
`Lair v. Bullock,
`697 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 4
`Leiva-Perez v. Holder,
`640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................ 4, 5
`Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd.,
`593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) .......................................................................... 15
`Montoya v. Comcast Corp.,
`No. 15-CV-02573-TLN, 2016 WL 5340651 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23,
`2016) ................................................................................................................. 8
`Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.,
`460 U.S. 1 (1983) ......................................................................... 13, 15, 16, 18
`Mundi v. Union Sec. Life Ins. Co.,
`No. 06-CV-1493-OWW, 2007 WL 2385069 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17,
`2007) ............................................................................................................. 1, 9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- iii -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 30 Page ID #:1446
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc.,
`
`No. 2:07-CV-06465-FMC, 2008 WL 8608808 (C.D. Cal. July 1,
`2008) ........................................................................................................ passim
`Pokorny v. Quixtar Inc.,
`No. 07-CV-00201-SC, 2008 WL 1787111 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17,
`2008) ................................................................................................. 5, 6, 12, 13
`Revitch v. DirecTV, LLC,
`No. 18-CV-01127-JCS, 2018 WL 5906077 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9,
`2018) ........................................................................................................... 4, 11
`Stern v. Cingular Wireless Corp.,
`No. 05-CV-8842-CAS, 2006 WL 2790243 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11,
`2006) ......................................................................................................... 5, 7, 8
`Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp.,
`559 U.S. 662 (2010) ....................................................................................... 10
`Sunlight Prod. Techs. v. MPOWERD,
`No. 15-CV-126-MWF (JEM), 2015 WL 12655479 (C.D. Cal.
`Sept. 17, 2015) ......................................................................................... passim
`Tice v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-1311-SVW, 2020 WL 1625782 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25,
`2020) ................................................................................................................. 6
`United States v. Laursen,
`847 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 9
`Velasquez-Reyes v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 16-CV-1953-DMG, 2018 WL 6074573 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8,
`2018) ........................................................................................................ passim
`Ward v. Estate of Goossen,
`No. 14-CV-03510-TEH, 2014 WL 7273911 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22,
`2014) ............................................................................................... 4, 12, 13, 14
`Winig v. Cingular Wireless LLC,
`No. 06-CV-4297-MMC, 2006 WL 3201047 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6,
`2006) ................................................................................................. 5, 7, 13, 14
`- iv -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`6008651
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 30 Page ID #:1447
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont.)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Yan Ma v. TransUnion LLC,
`
`No. 18-CV-04095 PA (MRWx), 2018 WL 6177229 (C.D. Cal.
`Sept. 21, 2018) ................................................................................................ 21
`Youssefzadeh v. Glob.-IP Cayman,
`No. 18-CV-02522-JLSJCG, 2018 WL 6118436 (C.D. Cal. July
`30, 2018) ......................................................................................... 2, 15, 18, 20
`Zaborowski v. MHN Gov’t Servs., Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-05109-SI, 2013 WL 1832638 (N.D. Cal. May 1,
`2013) ............................................................................................... 4, 11, 13, 14
`Statutes
`9 U.S.C. § 16 ............................................................................................................. 13
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1641 ............................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- v -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 7 of 30 Page ID #:1448
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 16, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
`thereafter as may be heard, in Courtroom 5A of the above-entitled Court, located in
`the United States Courthouse, 350 West First Street, California 90012, Defendant
`Ring LLC (“Ring”) will and hereby does move for an order staying all proceedings in
`this matter.
`This Motion is made on the grounds that the remaining plaintiffs’
`(“Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs”) claims should be stayed pending Ring’s appeal of the
`Court’s June 24, 2021 Order denying in part Ring’s motion to compel arbitration.
`Dkt. 113. Ring’s appeal raises several, substantial questions of law regarding whether
`the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs are bound to arbitrate under Ring’s Terms of Service, and
`the balance of hardships and public interest favor a stay. See Aviles v. Quik Pick
`Express, LLC, No. 15-CV-5214-MWF, 2016 WL 6902458, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 25,
`2016).
`Ring also moves to stay this litigation pending arbitration of the Non-Purchaser
`Plaintiffs’ parents’ and guardians’ claims. The Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims are
`identical to and dependent on their parents’ and legal guardians’ claims, which the
`Court compelled to arbitration. Because “allowing both proceedings to run parallel
`would risk inconsistent outcomes” amongst individuals living in the same households,
`and result in the duplication of effort and efficiencies, a stay is warranted. See Sunlight
`Prod. Techs. v. MPOWERD, No. 15-CV-126-MWF (JEM), 2015 WL 12655479, at
`*5–7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015).
`The Court should grant Ring’s motion to stay proceedings both pending appeal
`and pending resolution of the relevant arbitrations. However, either basis for the
`requested stay provides an independent and sufficient ground to grant Ring’s Motion.
`This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities filed herewith, all pleadings and papers filed in this action, and such other
`matters as may be presented to the Court at the time of or before the hearing.
`- 1 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 8 of 30 Page ID #:1449
`
`This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3
`
`which took place on July 12, 2021.
`
`Dated: July 19, 2021
`
`
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`
`By:
`Moez M. Kaba
`Attorneys for Defendant Ring LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 2 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 9 of 30 Page ID #:1450
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`On June 24, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant
`Ring LLC’s (“Ring’s”) motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. Dkt. 113
`(“Order”). As a result, only the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims remain before the
`Court.1 On July 19, 2021, Ring filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the Court’s
`denial of Ring’s motion to compel arbitration of the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims.
`Ring respectfully requests that the Court stay further proceedings pending
`resolution of Ring’s appeal. District courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely stay
`proceedings pending appeal of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration, see,
`e.g., Aviles v. Quik Pick Express, LLC, No. 15-CV-5214-MWF, 2016 WL 6902458
`(C.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) (Fitzgerald, J.), and have done so specifically when the
`appeal presents serious legal questions about binding a non-signatory to an arbitration
`agreement, Hansen v. Rock Holdings, Inc., No. 19-CV-00179-KJM, 2020 WL
`3867652, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2020) (granting stay pending appeal that raised
`questions about the application of equitable estoppel to non-signatory to arbitration
`agreement); Mundi v. Union Sec. Life Ins. Co., No. 06-CV-1493-OWW, 2007 WL
`2385069, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2007) (same).
`Ring’s appeal will present several serious legal questions about whether the
`Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs are required to arbitrate under Ring’s Terms of Service
`(“Terms”). For example, as the Court acknowledged, its Order splits from other
`district courts in this Circuit that have compelled non-signatories to arbitrate when, as
`here, there is a preexisting, intimate familial relationship between a signatory and non-
`signatory. See Order at 14–15; see also Aviles, 2016 WL 6902458, at *3 (appeal raised
`
`
`1 Consistent with the Court’s Order, Ring adopts the term “Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs”
`to refer to Plaintiffs A.L., J.B., M.M., C.T., C.T., J.P., J.P., R.M., A.M., T.S., S.S.,
`B.B., and Phyllis McKiernan, and will use “Purchaser Plaintiffs” to refer to the
`Plaintiffs whose claims have been referred to arbitration.
`- 1 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 10 of 30 Page ID
`#:1451
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`substantial question of law because “district courts in the Ninth Circuit have split” on
`
`the issue).
`The balance of equities and public interest also favor a stay. Without a stay,
`Ring will suffer the irreparable harm of losing “forever” the advantages of
`arbitration—“speed and economy”—and will be forced to incur significant costs for
`class-wide discovery and motion practice that Ring would not incur in arbitration.
`Alascom, Inc. v. ITT N. Elec. Co., 727 F.2d 1419, 1422 (9th Cir. 1984); see Velasquez-
`Reyes v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 16-CV-1953-DMG, 2018 WL 6074573, at *3
`(C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018) (“[T]he additional fact of class certification litigation makes
`the irreparable harm factor weigh particularly in favor of Defendant.”). A stay also
`would further the public policy that strongly favors arbitration and serves the interests
`of judicial economy. See Murphy v. DirecTV, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-06465-FMC, 2008
`WL 8608808, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2008) (“[T]he strong public policy favoring
`arbitration warrants issuance of a stay pending appeal.”); Aviles, 2016 WL 6902458,
`at *4 (“[T]he interests of judicial efficiency and conservation of resources favor a
`stay.”).
`The Court should also stay proceedings for the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims
`pending resolution of their parents’ and legal guardians’ claims in arbitration. A stay
`of non-arbitrable claims pending arbitration is “justified where the arbitrable claims
`are essentially inseparable from the non-arbitrable claims.” Youssefzadeh v. Glob.-IP
`Cayman, No. 18-CV-02522-JLSJCG, 2018 WL 6118436, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 30,
`2018) (collecting cases). Here, the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims are identical to
`and dependent on their parents’ and guardians’ claims. Indeed, the First Amended
`Complaint alleges that the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs are members of the same putative
`class as their parents and guardians because “common questions of law and fact exist
`as to all” of them. Dkt. 69 (“FAC”) ¶¶ 414–18.
`In addition to “[c]onsiderations of economy and efficiency,” a stay is warranted
`because “allowing both proceedings to run parallel would risk inconsistent outcomes.”
`
`- 2 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 11 of 30 Page ID
`#:1452
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`See Sunlight Prod. Techs. v. MPOWERD, No. 15-CV-126-MWF (JEM), 2015 WL
`
`12655479, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2015) (Fitzgerald, J.). Here, that risk is unique
`and severe: if the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs and their parents and guardians proceed on
`dual tracks, there could be inconsistent rulings on factually and legally identical claims
`within the same households. That is untenable.2
`“A district court has inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on
`its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for
`counsel, and for litigants.” Velasquez-Reyes, 2018 WL 6074573, at *1 (citation
`omitted). Ring respectfully submits that a stay of proceedings would promote
`efficiency for the Court and the litigants, and is warranted given Ring’s appeal and the
`parallel arbitration proceedings for the Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims. The Court should
`grant Ring’s motion to stay all proceedings both pending appeal and pending
`resolution of the relevant arbitrations. However, either basis for the requested stay
`provides an independent and sufficient ground to grant Ring’s motion.3
`II. A STAY PENDING APPEAL IS WARRANTED
`A. Legal Standard
`District courts in the Ninth Circuit apply a four-factor test to determine whether
`a stay pending appeal is warranted:
`(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is
`likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be
`irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
`
`2 While Ring’s Terms generally require claims to be brought on an individual basis,
`(see, e.g., Dkt. 83 at 2–3, 6–7), claims from the same household could be heard by the
`same arbitrator pursuant to the parties’ agreement for convenience, efficiency, and to
`eliminate the possibility of inconsistent rulings. See Dkt. 83-13 at 15, para. 1
`(“[U]nless both you and Ring expressly agree otherwise, the arbitrator may not
`consolidate more than one person’s claims. . . .”).
`3 On July 22, 2021, the deadline for Ring to file a responsive pleading, Ring will file a
`Motion to Dismiss and to Strike the Class Allegations. Should the Court grant Ring’s
`motion to stay proceedings, however, Ring’s forthcoming motion to dismiss need not
`proceed at this time.
`
`- 3 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 12 of 30 Page ID
`#:1453
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and
`(4) where the public interest lies.
`
`Lair v. Bullock, 697 F.3d 1200, 1203 (9th Cir. 2012). In weighing these factors, the
`Ninth Circuit applies a “sliding scale” approach in which “a stronger showing of one
`[factor] . . . may offset a weaker showing of another.” Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640
`F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011).
`“[T]he Ninth Circuit has clarified [that the first factor] does not require a
`demonstration that success on appeal is more likely than not; rather, the moving party
`need only show that its appeal ‘raises serious legal questions, or has a reasonable
`probability or fair prospect of success.’” Aviles, 2016 WL 6902458, at *2 (quoting
`Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at 971); see also Britton v. Co-op Banking Grp., 916 F.2d 1405,
`1412 (9th Cir. 1990) (stay pending appeal from an order denying a motion to compel
`arbitration may issue if “the court finds that the motion presents a substantial
`question”). For example, a stay may be warranted “when the district court has ruled
`on an admittedly difficult legal question and when the equities of the case suggest that
`a stay is warranted.” Velasquez-Reyes, 2018 WL 6074573, at *1 (internal quotation
`marks and citation omitted). Thus, Ring need not prove that the Court erred in denying
`the motion to compel arbitration to justify a stay. See Murphy, 2008 WL 8608808, at
`*2 (noting the “dilemma” a court would face were it required to conclude it erred to
`grant a stay pending appeal).
`District courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely exercise their discretion to stay
`proceedings pending appeal of an order denying arbitration. See, e.g., Aviles, 2016
`WL 6902458; Hansen, 2020 WL 3867652; Velasquez-Reyes, 2018 WL 6074573;
`Murphy, 2008 WL 8608808; Revitch v. DirecTV, LLC, No. 18-CV-01127-JCS, 2018
`WL 5906077 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018); McGhee v. N. Am. Bancard, LLC, No. 17-CV-
`0586-AJB, 2018 WL 11267348 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2018); Ward v. Estate of Goossen,
`No. 14-CV-03510-TEH, 2014 WL 7273911 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2014); Zaborowski v.
`MHN Gov’t Servs., Inc., No. 12-CV-05109-SI, 2013 WL 1832638 (N.D. Cal. May 1,
`
`- 4 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 13 of 30 Page ID
`#:1454
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2013); Pokorny v. Quixtar Inc., No. 07-CV-00201-SC, 2008 WL 1787111 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Apr. 17, 2008); Jones v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 04-CV-05357-JW, 2007 WL 1456041
`(N.D. Cal. May 17, 2007); Stern v. Cingular Wireless Corp., No. 05-CV-8842-CAS,
`2006 WL 2790243 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2006); Winig v. Cingular Wireless LLC, No.
`06-CV-4297-MMC, 2006 WL 3201047 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2006).
`Here, too, a stay pending appeal is warranted because (1) Ring’s appeal will
`raise several serious legal questions; (2) absent a stay, Ring will suffer irreparable harm
`because it will forever lose the advantages of arbitration and instead expend substantial
`costs, time, and resources litigating the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims, including
`class discovery and certification; (3) the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs will not be
`prejudiced by a stay; and (4) the public interest would be served by a stay, which will
`vindicate the strong public policies favoring arbitration and conservation of judicial
`resources.
`B. Ring’s Appeal Will Raise Serious Legal Questions
`Ring satisfies the first stay factor because its appeal raises several “serious legal
`questions.” Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at 968. With due respect to the Court’s Order, Ring
`maintains that the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs should be bound to arbitrate under Ring’s
`Terms based on well-established California and federal law, and that there is a
`“reasonable probability” or “fair prospect” that the Ninth Circuit will have a different
`view on one or more of these legal questions, any of which is sufficient to justify a
`stay pending appeal. Id. at 967.
`First, there is a serious legal question whether the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs
`should be bound to arbitrate under the Terms based on their preexisting relationship
`with a signatory to the Terms. Although the Court rejected Ring’s argument that the
`Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ parent/child or guardianship relationship with a Purchaser
`Plaintiff made it equitable to compel them to arbitrate, that holding—as the Court
`recognized—conflicts with rulings by two other courts in this district. Those courts
`concluded that a preexisting, intimate familial relationship with a signatory was a
`
`- 5 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 14 of 30 Page ID
`#:1455
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`sufficient basis to compel non-signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate pursuant to a consumer
`
`contract. See Order at 15 (citing Tice v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-CV-1311-SVW,
`2020 WL 1625782, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2020); Chan v. Charter Commc’ns
`Holding Co., No. 15-CV-0886-JGB, 2015 WL 12655701, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6,
`2015)).4 Ring understands that the Court found these decisions unpersuasive;
`however, the fact that courts confronted with almost identical factual circumstances
`disagree establishes a serious legal question for appeal. As this Court recognized in
`Aviles, that “district courts in the Ninth Circuit have split” on an issue means that
`Ring’s appeal “raises a substantial question of law that the Ninth Circuit has yet to
`address.” Aviles, 2016 WL 6902458, at *3; Velasquez-Reyes, 2018 WL 6074573, at
`*2 (serious legal questions element satisfied because of split between district court
`rulings); Pokorny, 2008 WL 1787111, at *1 (serious legal questions element satisfied
`because of split between various court’s rulings).
`Confronted with a nearly identical situation, another district court in this circuit
`concluded that there was a serious legal question on appeal based on the conflict
`between the court’s decision and Tice. See B.F. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 19-CV-910-
`RAJ, 2020 WL 3548010, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 15, 2020), report and
`recommendation adopted sub nom. B.F. by & through Fields v. Amazon, No. 19-CV-
`910-RAJ, 2020 WL 3542653 (W.D. Wash. June 30, 2020). The B.F. court noted that
`its order and the “contradictory Tice decision” created “a conflict in law regarding the
`treatment of equitable estoppel.” Id. *3. This “split in authority” raised “a serious
`legal question” which favored a stay pending appeal. Id. at *3. Here, too, the Court’s
`
`
`4 While these cases involved a preexisting spousal relationship, California law is clear
`that it is also equitable to compel arbitration when a parent/child relationship exists.
`See Cty. of Contra Costa v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 47 Cal. App. 4th 237,
`242 (1996) (discussing a parent/child relationship as one such “preexisting relationship
`between the nonsignatory and one of the parties to the arbitration agreement”).
`- 6 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 15 of 30 Page ID
`#:1456
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Order creates a split in authority, and Ring’s appeal will raise a serious legal question
`
`to resolve that split.
`Second, there is a serious legal question whether the signatories assented to
`arbitration on behalf of their children or wards. The Court held that “the authority to
`contract for goods beyond necessities like education or medical care” is not “implicit
`in a parent or guardian’s duty to provide for the care of her child or dependent.” Order
`at 14–15. But nothing in Doyle v. Giuliucci, 401 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1965), limits a parent’s
`right to contract on behalf of their child to contracts for medical or necessary services.
`Rather, the California Supreme Court recognized that the parent’s right to contract was
`“implicit in a parent’s right and duty to provide for the care of his child.” Doyle, 401
`P.2d at 3. Other courts have concluded that this broad parental right and duty of care
`includes the right to agree to arbitration when contracting for non-medical services.
`See Dkt. 99 at 14. Whether Doyle applies to consumer contracts presents an issue of
`first impression for the Ninth Circuit (and California courts). Thus, the application of
`Doyle to the facts here presents a serious legal question on appeal. See McGhee, 2018
`WL 11267348, at *1 (“[I]ssues of first impression are considered serious legal
`questions within the Ninth Circuit.”); Winig, 2006 WL 3201047, at *1 (serious legal
`questions element satisfied because the Ninth Circuit had not issued a published
`opinion addressing certain California Supreme Court precedent); Stern, 2006 WL
`2790243, at *1 (same).
`Moreover, even if Doyle’s holding were limited to “necessities like education
`or child care” as the Court suggested, see Order at 15, the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs
`allege that their parents and guardians purchased Ring devices to provide security in
`their homes. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 2, 6. A parent or guardian should have “implicit”
`authority to keep their children or wards safe and secure given their “duty to provide
`for the care of her child or dependent.” Order at 15.
`Third, there is a serious legal question whether the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs
`should be bound to arbitrate under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The Court held
`
`- 7 -
`DEFENDANT RING LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`6008651
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-10899-MWF-RAO Document 120 Filed 07/19/21 Page 16 of 30 Page ID
`#:1457
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`that the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs did not “knowingly exploit” the Terms as required
`
`for the doctrine of equitable estoppel to apply. Order at 15–16. In doing so, the Court
`did not address the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs’ admissions that they used and relied on
`Ring’s products and services, or Ring’s argument that the Non-Purchaser Plaintiffs
`specifically relied on their use of Ring’s products and services and their alleged status
`as Ring’s customers to assert their claims. Id. Under similar circumstances, two
`district courts applying California law have conclud