Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02833/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02833-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0227(b)(3) Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

---

1 

16cv2833 JM (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TREVER DECLUE and KATHERINE 

DECLUE, individually and on behalf of 

those similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

SERVICES COMPANY, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 16cv2833 JM (JMA) 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

Before the court is Defendant United Consumer Financial Services Company’s 

(“Defendant”) motion to stay proceedings pending the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in ACA 

International v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 15-1211. (Doc. No. 33.) 

Plaintiffs Trever and Katherine DeClue (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) oppose the motion. The 

court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local 

Rule 7.1(d)(1) and, for the following reasons, denies Defendant’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural History 

 On November 18, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging negligent 

and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). (Doc. No. 1.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02833-JM-JMA Document 38 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2 

16cv2833 JM (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ operative first amended class action complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendant 

repeatedly called Mr. DeClue on his personal cell phone, which was included as part of 

Ms. DeClue’s subscription with her service provider, after Mr. DeClue revoked consent to 

do so. (Doc. No. 12 ¶¶ 13–24.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant used an automatic 

telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to make the calls, and at least one of the calls used an 

artificial or prerecorded voice. (Id. ¶¶ 25–29.) Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide 

class of similarly situated persons who received calls from Defendant through the use of 

an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice. (Id. ¶ 40.) 

 On July 11, 2017, Defendant moved to stay the matter pending the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in ACA International. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiffs oppose a stay. (Doc. No. 35.) 

II. The FCC’s 2015 Order and the D.C. Circuit Appeal in ACA International 

 In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) issued a ruling 

clarifying various provisions of the TCPA. In the Matter of Rules & Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961 

(July 10, 2015) (“2015 FCC Order”). Defendant highlights the FCC’s rulings on ATDS 

and revocation of consent, arguing that the definitions of these terms are at issue in this 

case, and requests a stay while those definitions are contested. (Doc. No. 33-1 at 3–4.) 

 The TCPA defines an ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or 

produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; 

and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). In the 2015 FCC Order, the FCC 

explained that “the capacity of an autodialer is not limited to its current configuration but 

also includes its potential functionalities.” 2015 FCC Order ¶ 16 (emphasis added). 

 The TCPA does not explicitly address revocation of consent, but the FCC clarified 

that consumers may revoke consent through “any reasonable means.” Id. ¶ 55. The FCC 

found that the “most reasonable interpretation of consent is to allow consumers to revoke 

consent if they decide they no longer wish to receive voice calls or texts.” Id. ¶ 56. 

 The 2015 FCC Order is currently under review by the D.C. Circuit in ACA 

International. The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in October 2016. (Doc. No. 37 at 3.) 

Case 3:16-cv-02833-JM-JMA Document 38 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3 

16cv2833 JM (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LEGAL STANDARD

 District courts have inherent power to stay proceedings. This power to stay “is 

incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on 

its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis 

v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The court may grant a stay “pending resolution 

of independent proceedings which bear upon the case,” even if those proceedings are not 

“necessarily controlling of the action before the court.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of 

California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979). 

 Using this power “calls for the exercise of judgment, [by] which [courts] must weigh 

competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. The 

competing interests the court considers include “the possible damage which may result 

from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being 

required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the 

simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected 

to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). The party 

seeking a stay bears the “burden of showing that the circumstances justify” the court 

exercising its discretion to stay proceedings. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). 

DISCUSSION

 Defendant argues that the court should issue a stay because the ruling in ACA 

International could affect two issues in this case—whether Defendant used an ATDS and 

whether Plaintiffs effectively revoked any prior express consent. 

 A plaintiff may bring a claim under the TCPA by alleging that the defendant called 

him or her using either an ATDS or a prerecorded voice. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). Plaintiffs, 

in their complaint, allege that Defendant used both an ATDS and an “automated” or 

prerecorded voice at least one of the times it called Mr. DeClue. (Doc. No. 12 ¶ 27–28.) 

As a result, Plaintiffs’ TCPA claims will remain even if the D.C. Circuit’s ruling impacts 

the definition of an ATDS. See Mendez v. Optio Sols., LLC, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 1233 

(S.D. Cal. 2017) (“[B]ecause Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the TCPA through both

Case 3:16-cv-02833-JM-JMA Document 38 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4 

16cv2833 JM (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the use of an ATDS and an artificial or prerecorded voice, Plaintiff’s TCPA claim will 

stand despite the ATDS allegations.”) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, discovery 

regarding the type of calling system Defendant uses will be necessary to determine whether 

it fits any definition of ATDS, whether it be that of the 2015 FCC Order or a new definition 

provided by the D.C. Circuit. 

 Similarly, the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International is unlikely to affect 

whether Plaintiffs were able to revoke their consent to be autodialed. If the D.C. Circuit 

upholds the 2015 FCC Order, the parties will need to conduct discovery to determine 

whether Plaintiffs’ revocation of consent was effective. If the 2015 FCC Order’s ruling on 

consent revocation does not survive, the parties will still need to conduct similar discovery, 

only under Ninth Circuit precedent. See Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Grp., LLC, 847 

F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that consumers may revoke their prior express 

consent under the TCPA); see also Riazi v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2017 WL 4269791, at *3 

(E.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2017) (denying motion to stay because Eighth Circuit precedent prior 

to the 2015 FCC Order allowed a consumer to revoke consent under the TCPA); Terec v. 

Reg’l Acceptance Corp., 2017 WL 662181, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2017) (denying 

motion to stay because the Eleventh Circuit permits oral revocation of consent under the 

TCPA). Although the Ninth Circuit took the 2015 FCC Order into consideration, the 

FCC’s ruling did not serve as the sole basis for its decision. Instead, the Ninth Circuit 

determined that “the TCPA permits consumers to revoke their prior express consent” based 

on common law principles, the purpose of the TCPA, and other FCC guidance. Van Patten, 

847 F.3d at 1048. Therefore, its holding would remain relevant even if the D.C. Circuit 

invalidates the 2015 FCC Order. 

 In sum, Defendant has not shown that this case presents those “rare circumstances” 

that warrant a stay. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. Discovery on Defendant’s dialing system and 

Plaintiffs’ method of revoking consent will be necessary regardless of the outcome of ACA 

International; accordingly, a stay will not significantly promote judicial economy. 

Moreover, almost a year has passed since the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments for ACA 

Case 3:16-cv-02833-JM-JMA Document 38 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5 

16cv2833 JM (JMA) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

International, which means that it will likely render a decision that could guide the parties 

before discovery ends and issues are put before the court for a final determination. 

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Defendant’s motion to stay proceedings 

pending the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in ACA International. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 11, 2017 JEFFREY T. MILLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-02833-JM-JMA Document 38 Filed 10/11/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5