In Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc., 2016 WL 1122092, at *3 (N.D.W.Va., 2016), Judge Bailey stayed a TCPA case pending the outcome of Spokeo.
As noted by the defendants, many district courts throughout the country have granted stay pending the Supreme Court’s Spokeo decision, including many cases involving the TCPA. Although there are also several district courts that have denied similar stays, an analysis under the above-stated factors indicates that a stay is appropriate here, as each factor weighs in favor of the defendants. It is in both the Court’s and the parties’ interests to wait for the Supreme Court’s Spokeo decision in order to utilize its guidance in assessing the merits of the plaintiff’s contentions regarding standing. The defendants would be prejudiced considerably should they continue to expend substantial resources in litigation only for the Supreme Court to rule that this Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve this case pursuant to Spokeo, and this Court will have expended needless time and resources in the interim. The plaintiff has not indicated any substantial prejudice likely to befall her should this case be stayed, and this Court can anticipate none. This Court also finds plaintiff’s assertion of prejudice due to facing frequently deleted call records and other ephemeral evidence under the defendants’ control to be unpersuasive given the rather brief stay pending the Spokeo decision; the Supreme Court’s decision is anticipated by June or July of this year. In short, it is prudent to put this litigation on hold for a few months in order to benefit from any pertinent wisdom the Supreme Court may offer regarding the plaintiff’s standing here.