In Jones v. AD Astra Recovery Services, Inc. 2016 WL 3145072, at *6 (D.Kan., 2016), Magistrate Judge Birzer denied a stay of a TCPA case pending outcome of the DC Circuit proceedings.
In Lee, and to maintain consistency in its rulings, here the Court finds, in conjunction with the existence of the full legal authority of the 2015 FCC Ruling, solely defending a suit, without setting forth additional prejudice, “does not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis.” Despite the D. C. Circuit’s eventual ruling, it will still be necessary for the parties to obtain discovery on the facts of this case. For example, fact discovery on the issues of whether an ATDS was used, the identify and phone numbers of the called parties and whether they provided their consent, and the number of received called, will still be necessary. Defendant even acknowledges “factual disputes may complicate the disposition of this case.” The potential that Defendant could engage in greater discovery, if the case is not stayed, does not constitute a “rare circumstance” which justifies an indefinite stay. Therefore, the Court finds no “clear case of hardship or inequity”35 to Defendant in this case proceeding, at least with scheduling and discovery, despite the pending appeal, and Defendant’s motion to stay is DENIED.