Summary
granting a stay and explaining that "[i]mportantly, Plaintiff has not shown that he will be prejudiced by a stay at such an early stage in the litigation. It is not likely the stay will be lengthy given that ACA International has been fully-briefed as of February 2016 and the potential prejudice is minimal"
Summary of this case from Ankcorn v. Kohl's Corp.Opinion
Case No: 6:16-cv-389-Orl-22TBS
08-02-2016
KENNETH COATNEY, Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY BANK and ALLIED INTERSTATE, Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants Synchrony Bank and Allied Interstate's ("Defendants") Motion to Stay Proceedings, (Doc. No. 33), to which Plaintiff Kenneth Coatney ("Plaintiff") responded in opposition, (Doc. No. 34). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendants' motion.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to call Plaintiff without consent to collect on a debt. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 20-32). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made approximately 400 unwanted calls to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶¶ 33, 40). On June 20, 2016, Defendants moved to stay this proceeding pending a decision in the D.C. Circuit Court decision, ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, Case No. 15-1211, which Defendants contend is dispositive of Plaintiff's TCPA claims. (Doc. No. 33 at p. 1).
II.
III. LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION
"The inherent discretionary authority of the district court to stay litigation pending the outcome of [a] related proceeding in another forum is not questioned." CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 1982). Courts consider several factors when evaluating a request for a stay, including "(1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the nonmoving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues and streamline the trial, and (3) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court." Freedom Sci., Inc. v. Enhanced Vision Sys., Inc., No. 8:11-CIV-1194-T-17, 2012 WL 9064727, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012)
In the Motion to Stay, Defendants seek an order staying this case until the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA International. (Doc. No. 33). The issue in ACA International bears directly on the instant case in that the ruling will determine whether the equipment that Defendants allegedly used to make telephone calls to Plaintiff is considered an ATDS for purposes of the TCPA. (Id. at p. 4). Defendants cite to a number of district court decisions granting a stay under similar circumstances; whereas Plaintiff cites to district court decisions holding the opposite. (Doc. No. 33 at p. 3; Doc. No. 34 at p. 5). Additionally, Plaintiff argues that ACA International is not dispositive of his claims because he also alleges that Defendants used a pre-recorded voice in addition to an ATDS, either of which constitutes grounds for a violation. (Doc. No. 34 at p. 7). Defendants emphasize that the vast majority of Plaintiff's claims (over 400 telephone calls) are for violations of the TCPA using an ATDS. (Doc. No. 37 at p. 6). The Court agrees with Defendants that ACA International will be significant in the ultimate resolution of this case because a majority of Plaintiff's TCPA claims are based on the use of an ATDS.
In ACA International, the D.C. Circuit will address what constitutes an "ATDS" for purposes of a TCPA violation. Rose v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-562-CAP, 2016 WL 3369283, at *2 (N.D. Ga. June 14, 2016). The TCPA provides that an ATDS is "equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1) (emphasis added). In a July 10, 2015 FCC Ruling, the FCC broadly defined the capacity of an ATDS as "not limited to its current configuration but also includes potential functionalities." In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd 7961, 7974 (2015). In ACA International, the D.C. Circuit will determine whether this expansive definition of "capacity" is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. See ACA International, No. 15-1211. Defendants argue that this determination may be dispositive of a majority of Plaintiff's TCPA claims because Defendants' equipment lacks the present capacity to make auto-dialed calls, but possesses the potential capacity to do so. (Doc. No. 33 at p. 6).
The Court finds that a stay is warranted. The Court is aware that district courts have gone both directions on this issue. However, the Court agrees with recent district court decisions in the Eleventh Circuit that have found, under similar circumstances, that a stay pending the resolution of ACA International is warranted. See Rose, 2016 WL 3369283; Shahin v. Synchrony Fin., et al, No. 8:15-cv-2941-35EAJ (M.D. Fla. Apr. 12, 2016); Mackiewicz v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC., No. 6:15-cv-465-Orl-18GJK (M.D. Fla. Nov. 10, 2015). Whether Defendants used an ATDS when making telephone calls to Plaintiff is "a threshold issue for liability under the TCPA and for the scope of discovery." Rose, 2016 WL 3369283, at *2. A stay will conserve judicial resources, will help clarify the law, and will enable this Court to render a sound decision. Importantly, Plaintiff has not shown that he will be prejudiced by a stay at such an early stage in the litigation. It is not likely the stay will be lengthy given that ACA International has been fully-briefed as of February 2016 and the potential prejudice is minimal. See id. Lastly, granting a stay "will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and the Court by allowing the Court to avoid issuing a dispositive Order in the midst of an uncertain legal environment." Mackiewicz, No. 6:15-cv-465-Orl-18GJK, at *2.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:
1. Defendants Synchrony Bank and Allied Interstate's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, (Doc. No. 33), filed on June 20, 2016, is GRANTED. This case is STAYED pending the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's ruling in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission.
2. Defendants are ORDERED to file a status report on November 1, 2016, and every three months thereafter.
3. The Parties are ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days of the decision in ACA International, they shall notify the Court of the ruling in that case, file a motion to reopen this case if necessary, and inform the Court whether and to what extent the ruling in that case has affected their respective positions in this case.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Orlando, Florida on August 2, 2016.
/s/_________
ANNE C. CONWAY
United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties