In Telephone Science Corporation v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2016 WL 47916, at *4 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge St. Eve stayed a TCPA case pending the outcome of Spokeo. 

Telephone Science operates a service called “Nomorobo”, designed to help consumers avoid incoming computerized telephone calls that the Federal Trade Commission refers to as “robocalls”—calls in which the caller uses a recorded or automated voice. . . . The pursuit of damages based on all calls that Asset Recovery placed or made to Telephone Science, as opposed to all calls Telephone Science answered, means that the calls forming the basis of the allegations are not limited to those for which Telephone Science generated out-of-pocket expenses. Of the 11,944 calls received, if only 450 of those calls resulted in monetary damage to establish injury in fact and Spokeo determines that more than a mere statutory violation is needed, Telephone Science likely cannot bootstrap that standing requirement onto each and every call for which it seeks relief. To the extent that Spokeo provides guidance for any differentiation between the categories of calls—answered versus placed—implications regarding Telephone Science’s standing arise. The Spokeo decision may also result in significantly less discovery if it limits the type or number of calls for which Telephone Science can seek damages. A stay will serve a useful purpose, therefore, to advance this litigation by promoting efficiency and economy for the proper basis of the allegations and claims that may proceed into discovery.