In Valladares v. Blackboard, Inc., 2015 WL 4466839  (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2015), Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied a request to stay a TCPA case because the petition pending before the FCC differed from the issues. in the case.

Defendants request in the alternative that the court stay the instant action, pending a decision by the FCC. Defendants argue that they have petitioned the FCC for declaratory relief concerning issues relating to prior consent and the TCPA’s exemption for certain calls made for emergency purposes. (Mot. 11–15; Ex. 2). Valladares, however, has not alleged that he consented to receive any of the Robocall Notifications in question nor does he allege that any such calls were ever identified as emergency-related. (Compl.5–6). Unlike the issues before the FCC, the sole issue before this court at this early stage in the proceedings is whether Valladares has alleged sufficient facts to state a valid claim under the TCPA. As explained above, Valladares has met his pleading burden in that regard. At the summary judgment stage, Defendants will have an opportunity to establish that they are not liable under the TCPA based upon more complete and detailed evidence gathered during discovery. However, it is premature at the motion to dismiss stage to consider such matters. Judicial economy would not be served if this case is allowed to stagnate on the court’s docket, waiting indefinitely for a decision by the FCC which may or may not be relevant. The court concludes that the appropriate course at this juncture is for the parties to proceed with discovery. Therefore, the motion to stay is denied.