Hansen v. Rock Holdings, Inc., 2:19-cv-00179

Plaintiff Bill Hansen sued LMB, CPL, and Digital Media under the TCPA, alleging an unsolicited marketing text was sent to his cellphone.
Defendants argued Hansen was bound by LMB’s online Terms of Use (which include an arbitration clause) because he or his mother clicked LMB’s “Click to See Your Free Results!” submit button consenting to contact and arbitration.
The district court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, citing a genuine factual dispute whether Hansen (or his mother on his behalf) clicked the submit button and whether a non‑signatory could be bound.
CPL and LMB appealed the denial to the Ninth Circuit and moved to stay district proceedings pending that appeal; Digital Media joined the stay request. Defendants also sought a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Barr v. AAPC (Political Consultants).
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Political Consultants, rendering that ground moot; the district court then considered the stay pending the Ninth Circuit appeal using the Nken factors.
The court granted the stay pending the Ninth Circuit appeal as to all defendants (to avoid piecemeal litigation) and denied plaintiff’s motion to compel CPL and LMB to answer as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court retained jurisdiction over the pending motions despite CPL/LMB’s interlocutory appeal	Court can decide collateral motions; jurisdiction remains	Appeal does not deprive court of jurisdiction over non‑appealed matters	Court retained jurisdiction and adjudicated the motions (Britton framework)
Whether a stay should be granted pending the Ninth Circuit appeal of the arbitration denial	Opposed; stay would prejudice plaintiff (delay, lost evidence)	Stay warranted: appeal raises serious legal questions; litigation costs are irreparable harm; balance and public interest favor stay	Stay granted: defendants showed serious legal questions, irreparable injury, hardships tilt sharply, public interest favors stay (applied Nken factors)
Whether a stay should be granted pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Political Consultants	Opposed	Requested stay pending SCOTUS decision	Denied as moot (SCOTUS issued decision)
Whether CPL and LMB must file answers now	Requests immediate answers	Opposes while arbitration appeal/stay pending	Denied as moot because stay granted

Britton v. Co‑op Banking Grp., 916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990) (interlocutory appeals generally do not divest district court of jurisdiction over non‑appealed matters)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors and sliding‑scale balancing test)
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (four‑factor standard for stays and injunctions)
Leiva‑Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing sliding scale and substantial‑case‑on‑the‑merits threshold)
Alascom, Inc. v. ITT North Elec. Co., 727 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1984) (litigation costs may cause irreparable harm when arbitration would obviate trial)
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1979) (district court may stay proceedings pending resolution of independent proceedings)
Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983) (approving stay of both arbitrable and non‑arbitrable claims where efficiency warrants)
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (stay should be reasonable in relation to urgency of claims)
Nguyen v. Tran, 157 Cal. App. 4th 1032 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (non‑signatories generally are not bound by arbitration agreements)