Hey, TCPAWorld!

It has become clear to us at Troutman Amin’s Florida office that the District Courts in Florida never sleep and never pause in their pursuit of TCPA defendants. However, in the newest development of Culbertson v. Pro Custom Solar LLC, No. 22-cv-2252, 2024 WL 4392680 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2024), the Middle District of Florida just GRANTED a motion to stay proceedings.

And in case you forgot, our very own Czar blogged this case before when the Court denied Defendant Pro Custom Solar’s (“PCS”) motion to dismiss for lack of standing, see ONE IS ENOUGH FOR STANDING: MDFL Court Finds One Pre-recorded Automated Message Is Sufficient For Article III Standing After Drazen – TCPAWorld, and again when the Court granted PCS’s motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims for remedies, which are not causes of action. See NERDY: New Case Discusses TCPA Remedies Versus Causes of Action and I am Here For It – TCPAWorld.

However, in today’s decision, PCS filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings pending the resolution of two parallel actions in District Court of New Jersey that moved for preliminary approval of their proposed class settlement. PCS argued these actions brought identical claims and class allegations, so approval of this settlement would resolve this action and provide relief.

While the Court “agree[d] with Plaintiffs that a stay of an indefinite period of time is improper and unwarranted[,]” it found that a limited stay of six months was appropriate. Id. at *2. In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted that

 [B]oth New Jersey cases were filed before the instant action [and] are farther along in discovery and in the stages of litigation … the settlement was reached after extensive fact and expert discovery, contentious discovery motions, productions of millions of call logs and lead files spanning the length of the class period, production of internal do not call lists and Defendant’s financial records, and lengthy settlement negotiations[.]

Id. at *2 (alterations added). Because of this, the Court agreed with PCS that a stay would “conserve judicial resources, avoid unnecessary discovery and expense, and prevent potential conflicting rulings[,]” but “emphasize[d]” that it would be “limited in duration.” Id. at *2-3 (alteration added).

The key takeaway from this Order is that, in Florida, a limited stay may be granted if a parallel case is likely to dispose of the litigation. That’s a high bar but I can’t say I’m surprised.