1 Joel E. Tasca Nevada Bar No. 14124 2 Stacy H. Rubin Nevada Bar No. 9298 3 BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 900 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: 702.471.7000 5 Facsimile: 702.471.7070 [email protected] 6 [email protected]

7 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11 GUILLERMINA BARRADAS, CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-02036-RFB-DJA

12 Plaintiff, STIPULATION TO STAY CASE PENDING THE 13 v. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S

14 SMITH-PALLUCK ASSOCIATES CORP. RULING ON THE DEFINITION OF AN d/b/a LAS VEGAS ATHLETIC CLUB, “ATDS” 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Guillermina Barradas (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Smith-Palluck 18 Associates Corp., d/b/a Las Vegas Athletic Clubs (“LVAC”) stipulate to, and 19 respectfully request that this Court enter, a stay of this case pending the United 20 States Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling in (“ ”) on 21 the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (“TCPA”) definition of an “automatic 22 telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”). 23 In , Facebook, Inc., challenges the Ninth Circuit’s definition of an 24 ATDS. In contrast to the conclusions of the Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits,1

25 1 The Third, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits hold that equipment must either (1) store 26 telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, or (2) produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number 27 generator. ., Inc.,

(7th Cir. 2020); .,

, 1310 (11th Cir. 2020); 28 .,

(3d Cir. 2018). 1 the Ninth Circuit holds that equipment is an ATDS simply if it has the capacity to 2 “store numbers to be called” and “to dial such numbers automatically.” 3 ,

(9th Cir. 2018). Facebook, Inc., has 4 requested—and the Supreme Court has now granted—certiorari on the following 5 issue:

6 Whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the 7 device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.” 8 Pet’n for Writ of Certiorari, , No. 19-511 (Oct. 17, 2019); , 2020

, at *1. The Supreme Court is now poised to resolve the growing 10 circuit split and determine the meaning of an ATDS in the October 2020 term. 11 This imminent ruling by the Supreme Court warrants a stay in this case.2 12 Whether LVAC called Plaintiff using an ATDS is a central issue.3 Here, a stay 13 pending the decision will promote judicial economy, ensure efficient discovery 14 and fairness, and avoid needless expense to the parties. ., 15

(1936) (recognizing the district court’s discretion to stay cases).4 16 Additionally, the requested stay has a finite period that is likely short, as the 17 Supreme Court “usually issues its decision within three months of oral argument; 18 only the very rare case bounces around the chambers for more than six months, and 19 almost every decision is issued in the same term in which the case is argued.” 20

21 2 Plaintiff reserves all rights in other cases. 22 3 Plaintiff alleges that LVAC called her on her cell phone using an ATDS. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 28, 47, 52. 23 4 , ., No. 2:16-cv-02217-GMN-PAL, 24

, at *5 (D. Nev. Aug. 8, 2017) (staying case after the Supreme Court granted certiorari regarding an issue that “will directly impact” 25 Plaintiff’s claim); , No. 2:17-cv-01696- APG-NJK,

, at *3 (D. Nev. June 20, 2017) (granting a 26 stay pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of certiorari petition regarding an issue that “could be dispositive of this case, or at least of significant issues in the case”); 27 , No. 2:15-cv-01946-GMN-VCF,

, at *5 (D. Nev. July 26, 2016) (staying case after the Supreme Court granted 28 certiorari regarding an issue that “will directly impact” the court’s jurisdiction). 1|| Best for Last: The Timing of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions,

, 99 (Mar. 2015). 3 For these reasons, LVAC and Plaintiff stipulate and respectfully request the this Court stay this case until the United States Supreme Court rules on the Nint Circuit’s definition of an ATDS in Duguid. 6 DATED this 22nd day of July, 2020. 7] KNEPPER & CLARK LLC BALLARD SPAHR LLP By: /s/ Miles N. Clark By: /s/ Joel E. Tasca Matthew I. Knepper, Esq. Joel E. Tasca, Esq. 9 Nevada Bar No. 12796 Nevada Bar No. 14124 Miles N. Clark, Esq. Stacy H. Rubin, Esq. 10 Nevada Bar No. 13848 Nevada Bar No. 9298 5510 So. Fort Apache Road 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 900 11 Suite 30 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Las Vegas, NV 89148 12 Attorneys for Defendant Smith-Palluck os David H. Krieger, Esq. Associates Corp., d/b/a Las Vegas Nevada Bar No. 9086 Athletic Club zg BS KRIEGER LAW GROUP, LLC 3 = 14 2850 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy 4828 Suite 200 2243 15 Henderson, Nevada 89052 2345 2 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Guillermina = Barradas 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED: 19 < < 20 RICHARD F. WARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 DATED this 23rd day of July, 2020. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28