On Monday, a large group of plaintiffs responded to Ring LLC’s proposed stay of security breach litigation, arguing that it would be an unfair imposition and would unduly delay the matter’s resolution.
Ring LLC’s motion to stay the proceedings comes after the Los Angeles, California federal court overseeing the case largely granted its motion to compel arbitration, and after Ring appealed a portion of that decision.
Consumers filed the class-action lawsuit after a 2019 security breach when, according to this week’s filing, hackers gained unauthorized access to the Ring devices owned by the plaintiff and class members. Consequently, hackers “virtually invaded” homes and “shouted profanities, obscenities, and death threats” at the victims, while other plaintiffs reportedly lost personally identifying information without their consent.
The lawsuit, brought by both Ring device purchasers and non-purchasers who lived in homes where the devices were used, was initiated to hold the defendant accountable for the harms emanating from its allegedly deficient cybersecurity measures and the breach. In June, the court sent the purchasers to arbitration on the grounds that they were bound by contractual agreement, but found that the non-purchasers were not similarly obligated.
Ring appealed the decision as to the non-purchaser plaintiffs and subsequently moved to stay proceedings in the district court pending appeal or pending the resolution of the arbitration claims. In this week’s filing, the consumers asserted that Ring falls short of satisfying the Ninth Circuit’s four-part test entitling it to the requested stay.
“Not only does Ring fail to show that it has a likelihood of success on the merits, but the balance of harms weighs heavily against a stay,” the opposition said. The plaintiffs argued that constricting their ability to conduct discovery and coupled therewith, the possibility of compromised evidence, far outweighs the alleged prejudice to Ring, namely expenses it will incur in connection with discovery and motion practice.
Addressing Ring’s second and separate stay request, the plaintiffs contended that because the non-purchaser plaintiffs’ claims are not contingent upon the resolution of the purchaser plaintiffs’ claims, “such a stay would do nothing but create delay without preserving judicial economy.”
The motion hearing is scheduled for Aug. 23 before Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.
Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Robinson Calcagnie Inc., and Ahdoot & Wolfson PC are interim co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs and the classes. Ring is represented by Hueston Hennigan LLP.