Lively v. Caribbean Cruise Lines, Inc., 2:14-cv-00953

Plaintiff Holly Lively (California resident) alleges Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. placed three automated calls to her cell phone in April 2014 in violation of the TCPA.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of persons who received calls to cellular numbers via an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice without prior express consent within four years before filing.
Defendant moved to stay this action pending resolution of several pending putative class actions against it in other districts, arguing the cases are substantially similar and duplicative.
Plaintiff opposed, arguing the other cases differ materially in class definitions, time periods, communication type (residential lines, texts, or specific campaign), and thus are not substantially similar.
The court analyzed the proposed class definitions in each related action and applied the CMAX stay factors (harm to plaintiff, hardship to defendant, and orderly administration of justice).
Court concluded the other actions differ materially (e.g., residential vs. cellular calls, texts, limited time windows, survey-based calls) and denied the stay as unnecessary and potentially harmful to Plaintiff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stay pending resolution of other TCPA class actions is warranted	Deny stay because other actions are materially different in class definitions, timeframes, and claims	Grant stay because multiple similar suits risk inconsistent rulings, duplicative discovery, and judicial inefficiency	Denied — other actions are not substantially similar enough to justify a stay
Whether the proposed class here is substantially similar to classes in other suits	Class here targets cellular calls in 2014 without consent	Other suits target residential numbers, texts, specific campaigns, or different timeframes	Held: class definitions differ (cellular vs residential, texts, campaign/time differences)
Harm to plaintiff from a stay	A stay would delay relief and could be lengthy, harming evidence preservation and access to witnesses	Delay is minimal and acceptable to avoid duplicative litigation	Held: potential lengthy delay would harm plaintiff and is not justified
Hardship to defendant if stay denied	N/A (primary argument is for stay)	Simultaneous litigation across courts imposes burden and risk of inconsistent rulings	Held: mere burden of defending is insufficient; differences among cases reduce risk of inconsistency

CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265 (9th Cir. 1962) (district courts have discretion to manage docket and consider stay factors)
Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (defending suit alone does not establish hardship warranting a stay)
Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) (stay doctrine favors avoiding duplicative litigation but depends on substantial similarity)