In Lathrop v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2016 WL 97511, at *4-5 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Tygar refused to stay the TCPA litigation pending the outcome of the ACA litigation or Spokeo.

The Court finds that a stay in favor of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International is not appropriate. . . Moreover, as counsel for Uber acknowledged at the hearing on this motion, the D.C. Circuit is unlikely to be the final step in the litigation over the FCC’s 2015 Omnibus Order. Whichever party is unsuccessful in that court is almost certain to appeal to the Supreme Court. Thus, even the most optimistic estimate of the time required for a decision from the D.C. Circuit significantly understates both the delay a stay might engender and the concomitant prejudice to Plaintiff. . . The Court also declines to grant the stay based on the pendency of Spokeo. In the case at bar, Plaintiffs have articulated concrete harm to them, and are not simply relying on a bare violation of the statute. ECF No. 54 ¶¶ 114–116. In addition to claiming statutory and punitive damages, Plaintiffs allege they and members of the class “suffered damages in the form of text message, data, and other charges to their cellular telephone plans.” Id. ¶ 116. Based on the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated an injury in fact. See, e.g., Johnson v. Navient Sols., Inc., No. 115CV00716LJMMJD, 2015 WL 8784150, at *2 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 15, 2015) (denying motion to stay in TCPA action pursuant to Spokeo because plaintiff’s intrusion of privacy allegation stated a claim for actual harm); Doe v., No. 15-cv-02338-WHO, 2015 WL 5853700 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015) (denying motion to stay in FCRA action because plaintiff adequately alleged actual injury and because balance of hardships did not warrant a stay). As Uber concedes, it may seek discovery on “whether it can mount a factual attack” to Plaintiffs’ claims of injury as well as class certification issues. ECF No. 77 at 21. But neither Uber’s description of the proceedings in Spokeo nor the Court’s independent review persuade the Court that Spokeo is likely to render this case moot.  In sum, Uber may face additional discovery obligations but has not established that this hardship justifies staying the case, which would otherwise be delayed with no identifiable end to the stay. Decisions in ACA International and Spokeo may have a beneficial impact on the case by clarifying questions of law. Nonetheless, Uber has not shown this is one of the “rare circumstances” in which a stay pending the resolution of an appeal in another case is appropriate. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.


See also Kaftans v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2016 WL 97489, at *1 (N.D.Cal., 2016).