A.B. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
A.B., an individual, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
VS.
SALESFORCE, INC.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:20-CV-01254
ORDER
Pending before this Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting
Stay and Request for Oral Argument (Doc. No. 249). Defendant Salesforce, Inc. ("Salesforce")
filed a response in opposition. (Doc. No. 250). The Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff D.R. 's
Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 251) and Salesforce's
response (Doc. No. 251 ). Upon close review of the pleadings and relevant legal standards, the
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 249) is DENIED.
On October 28, 2025, this Court granted Salesforce's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1595(b) and 3509(k). (Doc. No. 247). The Court held that the plain language of
18 U.S.C. § 1595(b) required this Court to stay this civil action during the pendency of a related
criminal case, United States v. Lacey, No. 2:18-CR-00422 (D . Ariz.). See Doe 1-10 v. Fitzgerald,
102 F.4th 1089, 1098 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding that the stay is a "mandatory obligation" for the civil
action if "(1) a criminal action or investigation is pending; (2) the criminal action arises "out of
the same occurrence" as the civil action; and (3) the plaintiff in the civil action is the victim of an
occurrence that is the same in the civil and criminal proceedings"). Other courts have held the
same. See, e.g., A.S. Salesforce, Inc., No. 3 :23 -CV-1039 (N .D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2025) (Doc. No. 179);
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:20-cv-01254 Document 253 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

IH v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 8:24-CV-01678 (M.D. Fl. Dec. 1, 2025) (Doc. No. 282); G.G. v.
Salesforce.com, Inc., No. 20-C-2335, 2026 WL 663407 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2026).
In their Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs do not bring forth any new arguments or
evidence related to the mandatory clause in§ 1595(b). Instead, Plaintiffs rehash the same statutory
interpretation arguments that were initially presented to this Court, but as the Fifth Circuit has
advised, " [a] motion for reconsideration may not be used to rehash rejected arguments." LeClerc
v. Webb , 419 F.3d 405 , 412 n.13 (5th Cir. 2005). While the Court recognizes that this mandatory
stay will delay reaching finality in this civil action, the Court must adhere to the plain text of the
statute. All counsel shall notify this Court within fourteen days of the final adjudication of the
Lacey case.
For the reasons above and explained in the Court's previous order (Doc. No. 247), the
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 249) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
~
Signed on this the 	2 v-- day of April 2026.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
2
Case 4:20-cv-01254 Document 253 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2