Zhang v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court. They alleged that Ancestry.com Operations Inc. used their names and likenesses, including yearbook photographs, to advertise and sell its subscription services without consent. The complaint asserted claims under California’s Right to Publicity law, common-law misappropriation of likeness, intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and unfair business practices.

Ancestry removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss and strike the action. The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court. The dispute closely resembled an earlier related case, Callahan v. Ancestry.com Inc., in which this court had dismissed claims in part because the plaintiffs had not shown an injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. The Callahan decision was then on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Analysis

The court held that it could consider Ancestry’s request for a stay before deciding the motion to remand. It reasoned that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Callahan appeal was likely to resolve issues concerning Article III standing and federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and therefore could affect both pending motions. The court found that no controlling precedent required it to decide the remand motion first.

The plaintiffs argued that Ancestry should be barred from removing the case because Ancestry had previously argued in Callahan that similar plaintiffs lacked standing. The court declined to apply estoppel, an equitable rule that can prevent a party from taking an inconsistent position. It found that Ancestry’s positions were not clearly inconsistent because Ancestry relied in part on alleged complete preemption under the Copyright Act and argued that standing was not required for removal on that basis. The court also declined to apply the law-of-the-case doctrine, which generally discourages reconsidering an issue already decided in the same litigation, because staying this case would not require changing an earlier decision in this case.

The court considered whether a stay was appropriate under its inherent authority to manage its docket. It found that a stay would avoid duplicative litigation and the risk of inconsistent rulings in state and federal court. The court also concluded that the stay would not cause obvious harm and would likely simplify the legal issues after the Ninth Circuit decided the Callahan appeal.

Disposition

The court stayed the action pending resolution of the Callahan appeal. It denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and Ancestry’s motion to dismiss and strike. The parties may file renewed motions within 30 days after the appeal is resolved, and they must provide the court with a joint update every three months while the appeal is pending. The clerk was directed to administratively close the file. Judge Laurel Beeler’s order disposed of the two motions identified in the order but did not decide the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.