A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: The Southern District Of California Grants Motion To Stay Pending The Outcome Of A California State Court Case

Hi, CIPAWorld! Kelly Sandberg here, with a case on how a California Superior Court case may provide further persuasive authority as to whether the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) applies to internet communications.

In Maeve Camplisson; David Sanchez; & S.D. v. Adidas America, Inc., Plaintiffs Maeve Camplisson, David Sanchez, and S.D., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) asserted CIPA violations against Defendant Adidas America, Inc. (“Adidas”) for installing and using tracking pixels on Plaintiffs’ browsers, which allegedly collected their private information without their consent. Maeve Camplisson; David Sanchez; & S.D. v. Adidas America, Inc., No. 25-CV-00603-GPC-GC, 2026 WL 2521849 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2026).

Ultimately, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Adidas’s motion to stay upon a finding that the pending decision of Variety Media, LLC v. Super. Ct. L.A. Cty., seemed likely to settle central legal issues that were the subject of the litigation discussed.

Adidas owns and operates its website http://www.adidas.com/us, that allows consumers to purchase the brands products. Adidas has tracking pixels installed on their website, including TikTok Pixel and Microsoft Bing. When a user visits the website, the tracker is installed into the user’s browser to track user interactions and place targeted advertisements.

Plaintiffs filed the action on March 14, 2025, and on June 26, 2026, Adidas moved to stay the proceedings in light of the pending decision in Variety Media, LLC v. Super. Ct. of the State of Cal., No. B350578 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2025).

In determining the issuance of a stay, “the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). The competing interests include: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “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.” Id.

Adidas contended that the stay should be granted because all three factors weighed in favor of a stay and because Variety Media, LLC was to provide an answer on whether “commonplace internet technologies,” such as website cookies, applies under section 638.51 of CIPA. Variety Media, LLC, No. B350578, at *3.

The Court found that the first factor under Lockyer leaned in favor of denying an open-ended stay. Despite the case having not yet engaged in significant discovery, and Adidas’s assertions that the case was not document sensitive and that they were preserving information in accordance with the federal rules, the Court determined that the indefinite nature of the stay raised the potential for dissipation of key witnesses and testimonial evidence. The nature of an indefinite stay created a fair probability of harm to Plaintiffs.

In assessing the second factor, Adidas argued that they would be severely prejudiced if the stay were denied because of the burden they would incur in providing resources and time in discovery. The Court found that Adidas would not suffer any hardship or inequity in having to conduct discovery requests but acknowledged a potential hardship in filing substantive motions such as opposing class certification and summary judgement motions.

Now, the final factor is where Adidas won here. Because the case of Variety Media involved issues overlapping with the present case – both cases require a determination of whether CIPA § 638.51 applies to internet technologies – the pending state court decision was likely to provide “substantial guidance that [would] materially impact the Court’s decision in this matter.” Maeve Camplisson, 2026 WL 2521849, at *5. Because the pending decision seemed likely to settle central legal issues that were present here, the Court found that a short stay would serve the orderly course of justice.

The important takeaway to note here is that as California courts continue developing their interpretations of CIPA applying to internet communications, litigators should remain vigilant in reviewing what upcoming cases may have persuasive authority to resolve their claims at the outset of litigation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.