T-Mobile Seeks Stay in Calif. USF Case, Pending 9th Circuit Appeal

The 9th Circuit appeal will be fully briefed by June 20, said T-Mobile’s motion. A district court stay “would increase efficiencies, reduce costs, and promote judicial economy, and would not impose any hardship on the CPUC,” it said. U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren Beeler set a videoconference-only hearing on T-Mobile's motion for June 22 at 9:30 a.m. PDT, said a clerk's order Tuesday. An initial case management conference previously scheduled for June 29 is reset for July 27 at 9:30 a.m. PDT, said the order.

It’s “well-settled” that the Northern District of California “has broad, discretionary authority to stay or hold in abeyance pending proceedings,” said T-Mobile’s motion. In considering whether to stay a case pending resolution of separate proceedings, said the motion, courts in the 9th Circuit “typically consider the possible damage that may result from the granting of a stay.” Also under consideration is “the hardship or inequity that a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay,” it said. Its citation was the Jan. 13 order in an immigration case, Babaria v. Blinken (docket 3:22-cv-05521), granting a stay pending 9th Circuit review.

All “considerations” favor a stay pending resolution of T-Mobile’s 9th Circuit appeal, said the motion. District courts “routinely exercise this authority” where, as here, a pending appeal to the 9th Circuit “has the potential to resolve (or provide guidance) with respect to the disputed issues underlying the district court proceedings,” it said. Where an appeal from a preliminary injunction order is pending, “staying the underlying proceedings until the appeal is resolved will likely increase efficiencies, reduce costs, and promote judicial economy,” it said: “Courts have reached the same conclusion in similar circumstances.”

Staying or holding in abeyance the district court proceedings “would also provide guidance on disputed issues of law and eliminate the possibility of inconsistent rulings on those issues,” said the motion. The 9th Circuit’s opinion in the case is expected to address the likelihood of success of T-Mobile’s federal preemption claims and will likely be helpful in informing the district court’s resolution “of any further dispositive motions in this case,” it said. Guidance from the 9th Circuit on that issue would ensure that subsequent proceedings in the district court are tailored to and consistent with the 9th Circuit’s resolution of that issue, it said.

That’s “particularly so” because T-Mobile’s “facial preemption claim” under Section 254(f) of the Communications Act “raises a pure question of law,” said the motion. T-Mobile and its subsidiaries don’t believe “there are any genuine and material disputed issues of fact concerning their competitive-neutrality claims,” it said. “Further development of the record” in the district court wouldn’t be “productive,” or won’t “meaningfully inform an analysis of the salient legal questions” currently before the 9th Circuit, it said.

A stay pending resolution of the appeal won’t impose any “hardship” on the CPUC, said the motion. Its new rule took effect April 1, it said. If the case is held in abeyance, “it will have no effect on the CPUC in any way,” it said. A stay would “benefit the CPUC” because the agency won’t need to “divert any of its resources to briefing its motion to dismiss or conducting discovery,” it said.