As the Supreme Court gets ready to hear arguments remotely tomorrow in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case that could re-shape the law, a plaintiff in a separate action related to calls made to collect on a debt is urging a federal judge not to wait to hear what the Supreme Court has to say as she opposes a defendant’s motion to stay that case.
A copy of the plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to stay the case in Carlier v. Charter Communications can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff claims to have received six calls from the defendant during a two-month span. In each of the calls, the defendant has sought to collect from someone who is not the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges she told the defendant that she was not the person the defendant was looking for on one of the first calls she received, but the calls have continued.
The plaintiff heard a momentary pause when she picked up the phone on some of the calls, a “hallmark” tell of an automated telephone dialing system, according to the complaint. On other calls, the plaintiff heard pre-recorded messages from the defendant.
Anything that the Supreme Court may determine in its ruling in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants will likely have no bearing on the arguments being made by the plaintiff in this case, her lawyers claim in their opposition to the motion to stay.
“A stay of this case pending a decision in Barr would only unduly prejudice Plaintiff and the proposed class because it will only become more difficult over time for Plaintiff to obtain the proof necessary to certify a class and prevail on the merits as memories fade and documents and electronically stored information becomes more difficult to obtain,” the plaintiff wrote in her brief. “Moreover, a stay would prevent Plaintiff from expeditiously obtaining the injunctive relief she seeks on behalf of herself and the proposed Class in the Complaint.”
