In Weisbein v. Allergan, Inc., No. SA CV 20-0801 FMO (ADSx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208813 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2020), Judge Olguin refused to stay a TCPA case.

Here, the competing interests affected by the proposed stay weigh in favor of plaintiff. The stay requested by defendants is indefinite. Although the Supreme Court has set oral argument for Duguid in December, 2020, it is speculative as to when the Supreme Court will reach a decision in the case, and the Ninth Circuit cautions against granting stays for such indefinite periods of time. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[L]engthy and indefinite stays place a plaintiff effectively out of court. . . . Even if litigation may eventually resume, such stays create a danger of denying justice by delay.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, although the nature of discovery in this case may change in some ways based on the outcome of Duguid, the court is unconvinced the entire action should be stayed for that reason alone. See Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[B]eing required to defend a suit [ ], does not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.”). “Although the decision in Duguid may simplify issues and questions of law, to grant the stay at this stage of the proceedings is premature.” Smith v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156427, 2020 WL 5033532, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2020); Lacy v. Comcast Cable Communs., LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146003, 2020 WL 4698646, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (denying motion to continue stay pending outcome of Duguid because “regardless of Duguid’s outcome, discovery [needed] to take place . . . regarding [ ] the existence and exact nature of any ATDS used”).