Just A Reminder to Stay With Us: Decisions From Coast to Coast Continue to Stay TCPA Cases pending SCOTUS Review

As we’ve been covering, the briefing in the big Facebook ATDS SCOTUS appeal is almost complete and oral argument is just about 45 days away now.

In the meantime, decisions continue to roll in granting stays in TCPA litigation across the nation.

For instance, on Friday of last week the S.D.N.Y. stayed a TCPA ATDS case finding “a decision in the Facebook case may substantially resolve the present case, easing the burden of discovery on the defendant and saving judicial resources. The plaintiff will not be harmed by the stay because the defendant has attested that it is aware of its obligations and has instituted a litigation hold to preserve documents that may be relevant to the litigation. The stay is for a relatively brief period of time because the Supreme Court will likely decide the Facebook case at some point in the current Term. The balance of the relevant factors weighs decidedly in favor of a stay.”  Loftus v. Signpost, Inc., 19 cv 7984 (JGK), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193130 (S.D.N.Y. October 19, 2020).

Then on Monday of this week the W.D. Wash. stayed a TCPA case arising out of a webform submission on Progressive.com. The Plaintiff contends he continued to receive marketing texts messages even after declining to purchase insurance with Progressive. But the Court agreed to stay this robotext case pending the Supreme Court’s TCPA review: “If the system that eFinancial uses to send its text messages does not meet the definition of an ATDS—a definition that the Supreme Court is expected to clarify in Duguid II—then Mr. Borden’s individual and class claims against eFinancial are not covered by the TCPA.”

Squire Patton Boggs’ powerful TCPA defense team, of course, helped pioneer the tactic of moving to stay TCPA litigation pending the Facebook SCOTUS ATDS appeal—it earned the first such stay in the nation—and TCPAWorld.com continues to encourage TCPA defendants to seek stays rather than risk creating bad case law like recently occurred in the Sixth Circuit’s Allan case and in the Fourth Circuit’s footprint.


1 Comment

Leave a Reply