Judge Denies Stay in TCPA Case Over Whether ATDS Was Used to Make Collection Calls

A District Court judge in Virginia has denied a defendant’s motion to stay proceedings after it was sued for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by allegedly making debt collection calls using an automated telephone dialing system after the plaintiff had revoked consent to be contacted. The defendant was seeking a stay pending the release of either an updated definition of an ATDS from the Federal Communications Commission or a decision from the Supreme Court to hear arguments in an ATDS case.

A copy of the ruling in the case of Stanley v. Capital One Financial Corp., can be accessed by clicking here.

The denial of the stay illustrates the widely varying nature of judicial discretion at the District Court level. Earlier this month, a District Court judge in Florida stay proceedings in a TCPA case to await how the FCC moves forward with its new definition of what constitutes an ATDS.

Given the “indefinite” nature of a stay pending the release of a new definition from the FCC — nobody knows when it will happen — and the uncertainty surrounding whether the Supreme Court will decide to hear arguments in Duguid v. Facebook, Judge Elizabeth Dillon of the District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, declined to stay the proceedings.

The plaintiff argued that a portion of his TCPA claim centers on whether the defendant used an artificial or pre-recorded voice when making its calls, which would not be affected by the FCC’s ruling or a Supreme Court decision.

Judge Dillon did note she was open to the idea of granting a stay in the future, should the situation change.

“The court finds that this outcome preserves judicial economy by preventing an indefinite stay while nonetheless leaving open the possibility of revisiting a stay if necessary,” she wrote. “As an example, if the Supreme Court denies the defendant’s petition for certiorari in Duguid, or if the parties find through discovery that Capital One’s dialer would meet any proposed definition of an ATDS, then the case will likely proceed without the need for a stay. If, however, the Supreme Court grants the petition for certiorari in Duguid

and the parties believe the Supreme Court’s ruling will be necessary to the resolution of this case, either party may file a subsequent motion to prevent re-litigating issues either at trial or on appeal.”