Fregosa v. Mashable Inc.

3:25-CV-01094-CRB
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James G. Snell (Bar No. 173070)
JSnell@perkinscoie.com
Timothy M. Carter (Bar No. 335212)
TCarter@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, California 94304-1212
Telephone: +1.650.838.4300
Facsimile: 	+1.650.838.4350
Mikella M. Hurley (Pro Hac Vice)
MHurley@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: +1.202.654.6200
Facsimile: 	+1.202.654.6211
Attorneys for Defendant MASHABLE, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAWN FREGOSA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASHABLE, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:25-CV-01094-CRB
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE
PENDING RULING FROM
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALORDER
Case 3:25-cv-01094-CRB Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 7

-1- 	3:25-CV-01094-CRB
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Dawn Fregosa (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Mashable, Inc. (“Mashable”), (together,
the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby jointly move this Court for an order
staying this case pending a ruling from the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District,
in Variety Media, LLC v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Case No. B350578 (the
“Variety Appeal”). The Parties stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Class Action Complaint
(“SAC”) against Mashable asserting a single cause of action for violation of California Penal Code
§ 638.51. See ECF No. 30.
WHEREAS, subject to certain exceptions, § 638.51 makes it unlawful to “install or use a
pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order pursuant to Section
638.52 or 638.53.” Cal. Penal Code § 638.51(a). And § 638.50(b) defines a “pen register” as “a
device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information
transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is
transmitted, but not the contents of a communication.” Id. at § 638.50(b).
WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleges that Mashable violated § 638.51 by, “without Plaintiff’s prior
consent and without a court order,” installing and/or using on its website certain technologies,
described by Plaintiff as “Trackers,” that “capture…the…‘routing, addressing, or signaling
information’” of website visitors.” ECF No. 30, ¶¶ 3, 4.
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2025, Mashable filed its Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 34.
WHEREAS, on October 9, 2025, the Court issued a written Order denying Mashable’s
Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 53.
WHEREAS, on November 10, 2025, Mashable filed its Motion to Certify this Court’s
Order Denying Mashable’s Motion to Dismiss for Interlocutory Appeal and for an Order to Stay
Proceedings (“Motion to Certify”). ECF No. 56.
WHEREAS, Mashable filed its answer to Plaintiff’s SAC on December 8, 2025, and the
Parties thereafter exchanged Initial Disclosures.
WHEREAS, on January 23, 2026, the Court issued a written Order denying Mashable’s
Motion to Certify. ECF No. 80.
Case 3:25-cv-01094-CRB Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 7

-2- 	3:25-CV-01094-CRB
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, On January 8, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District, issued in the Variety Appeal an Order to Show Cause directing the plaintiff to demonstrate
“why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted.” The Court of Appeal instructed
plaintiff to respond by February 9, 2026, and Variety to file its reply fifteen days thereafter.
WHEREAS, the issues raised in the Variety Appeal are dispositive as to whether Plaintiff
can bring claims against Mashable in this case. Specifically, the defendant in the Variety Appeal
has argued that “Section 638.51 was never intended to regulate online tracking technologies . . .
[particularly] in the context of routine, automated software deployed on commercial websites that
allows operators of those sites to collect nonpersonal information about the visitors to those
websites.”
WHEREAS, in its Order denying Mashable’s Motion to Certify, this Court held that “[t]he
question of whether CIPA’s pen register prohibition applies to the software on Mashable’s website
is . . . controlling” and noted that “[i]f Mashable’s argument on applicability is correct, then
[Plaintiff] could lose.” ECF No. 80 at 2.
WHEREAS, because no other appellate court—whether in the Ninth Circuit or California
Courts of Appeal—has issued a decision on the issue raised in the Variety Appeal and because the
Court of Appeal’s forthcoming decision in the Variety Appeal will either dispose of or significantly
streamline the issues in this case, the Parties have met and conferred and have agreed to stay this
case pending a ruling in the Variety Appeal.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby jointly stipulate to stay and request the Court
enter the concurrently filed proposed order staying the case pending a decision for the Court of
Appeal in the Variety Appeal.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Case 3:25-cv-01094-CRB Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 7

-3- 	3:25-CV-01094-CRB
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: February 18, 2026 	PERKINS COIE LLP
By: /s/ James G. Snell
James G. Snell
Mikella M. Hurley
Timothy M. Carter
Attorneys for Defendant MASHABLE, INC.
Dated: February 18, 2026 	BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
By: /s/ Philip L. Fraietta
L. Timothy Fisher
Joshua R. Wilner
Philip L. Fraietta
Max S. Roberts
Attorneys for Plaintiff DAWN FREGOSA
Case 3:25-cv-01094-CRB Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 7

-4- 	3:25-CV-01094-CRB
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTESTATION
Pursuant to L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I attest that each of the other signatories has concurred in the
filing of this document.
/s/ James G. Snell
James G. Snell
Case 3:25-cv-01094-CRB Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 7

3:25-CV-01094-CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION STAY CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James G. Snell (Bar No. 173070)
JSnell@perkinscoie.com
Timothy M. Carter (Bar No. 335212)
TCarter@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, California 94304-1212
Telephone: +1.650.838.4300
Facsimile: 	+1.650.838.4350
Mikella M. Hurley (Pro Hac Vice)
MHurley@perkinscoie.com
PERKINS COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: +1.202.654.6200
Facsimile: 	+1.202.654.6211
Attorneys for Defendant MASHABLE, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAWN FREGOSA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MASHABLE, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:25-CV-01094-CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATION TO STAY CASE
PENDING RULING FROM
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
Case 3:25-cv-01094-CRB Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 6 of 7

-1- 	3:25-CV-01094-CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO STAY CASE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that for good cause shown, the Parties’ Stipulation to Stay
Case Pending Ruling from California Court of Appeal is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:_______________________ 	_________________________________
HON. CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 19, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01094-CRB Document 82 Filed 02/19/26 Page 7 of 7