In Reynolds v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2017 WL 362025, at *2–3 (W.D.N.Y., 2017), Judge Payson stayed a TCPA case pending the outcome of the ACA Int’l proceedings.
Weighing these interests, this Court finds that a stay is warranted. Although plaintiff surely has a genuine and recognized interest in pursuing statutory damages, he will not be significantly prejudiced by awaiting a decision in ACA International to do so. TWC has represented that it has ceased the challenged conduct, and plaintiff has not disputed that representation. The wait for the ACA International decision, although undetermined in length, is not indefinite and is not likely to be long. The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in October 2016, and it is reasonable to believe that a decision will issue within the next several months, if not earlier. The expected delay is not likely to adversely affect witness memories (indeed, plaintiff himself is likely the most important witness in support of his claims) or risk loss or destruction of records (presumably, TWC has placed a litigation hold on records of debt collection communications with plaintiff). See Frable v. Synchrony Bank, 2016 WL 6123248, *4 (D. Minn. 2016) (“[d]efendant will rely on existing records to establish its position[;] [p]laintiff will rely in part on his own testimony to support his argument that he did not provide consent, and thus it is unlikely that a delay of a few months would prejudice him”). This Court further finds that both parties’ interests, as well as the Court’s, in conserving resources weigh strongly in favor of a stay. Surely, the ACA International decision, whatever its outcome and scope, will clarify many of the issues raised by this litigation and ensure the determination of those issues under the correct legal standards,1 thus minimizing the risk of revisiting legal determinations on reconsideration or on appeal. In addition, the scope of the issues in dispute and the discovery relating thereto may be narrowed by the ACA International decision—an outcome that would save the parties from needless expenditures and promote judicial economy. The public interest does not counsel a different result, nor do the interests of any possible nonparties to this litigation. For these reasons, this Court joins those courts that have decided that the interests to be considered weigh in favor of a stay. See, e.g., Jones v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2016 WL 7320919, *3 (E.D. Mich.) (“[i]n light of the uncertainty surrounding the proper interpretation of the TCPA and the lack of demonstrated prejudice to [plaintiff], the interest of judicial economy warrants a stay”), report and recommendation adopted by, 2016 WL 7242141 (E.D. Mich. 2016); Rajput v. Synchrony Bank, 2016 WL 6433150 at *8 (“factors weigh in favor of granting [d]efendant’s motion to stay”); Frable, 2016 WL 6123248 at *4 (“the Court finds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of staying this case until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a decision in ACA International”); Coatney v. Synchrony Bank, 2016 WL 4506315, *2 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (“[a] stay will conserve judicial resources, will help clarify the law, and will enable this Court to render a sound decision[;] [i]mportantly, [p]laintiff has not shown that he will be prejudiced by a stay at such an early stage in the litigation”); Rose v. Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, 2016 WL 3369283, *2 (N.D. Ga. 2016) (factors weigh in favor of stay); Errington v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2016 WL 2930696, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (same); Williams v. TGI Friday’s Inc., 2016 WL 1453032, *3 (E.D. Mo. 2016) (“[t]he Court holds that a stay is warranted in this case [because] … there is significant uncertainty regarding the TCPA’s scope and application … [and plaintiff] will not be prejudiced by a short stay”); Acton v. Intellectual Capital Mgmt., Inc., 2015 WL 9462110 at *3 (“the resolution of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will more precisely define terms set forth in the TCPA [;] … the factors weigh in favor of a stay”); Fontes v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 2015 WL 9272790, *5 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (“a stay is appropriate in these circumstances”). But see Espejo v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2016 WL 6037625, *5 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (other district courts “have come to the opposite conclusion, noting that the delay caused by a stay awaiting the D.C. Circuit’s decision could be substantial, and therefore opting to allow progress in the case, particularly on issues unrelated to that appeal”) (internal quotation omitted); Konopca v. Center for Excellence in Higher Educ., Inc., 2016 WL 4644461, *2-3 (D.N.J. 2016) (denying stay; collecting cases).