Hylton v. Titlemax of Virginia, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION MARLENE HYLTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV421-163 ) TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Defendant TitleMax of Virginia, Inc. seeks a stay of these proceedings pending the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ en banc decision in Drazen v. Pinto, No. 21-10199 (11th Cir.). Doc. 91. Plaintiff does not oppose the request. Doc. 92. For the following reasons, the Motion to Stay is GRANTED. Doc. 91. Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). See, e.g., doc. 51. Defendant has raised challenges throughout these proceedings to Plaintiff’s proposed class definition. See doc. 91 at 1. It argues that the current proposed class definition “contain[s] members with (potentially) no Article III standing.” Id. at 2. However, Defendant also recognizes that as applied to TCPA cases, “the Article III standing doctrine ‘has[s] been less than a model of clarity.’” Id. (quoting Drazen v. Pinto, 41 F.4th 1354 , 1362 n.14 (11th Cir. 2022), vacated on grant of pet. for rehr’g en banc, 61 F.4th 1297 (11th Cir. 2023)). The Eleventh Circuit granted the petition for rehearing en banc in Drazen which requested that the Court “clarify the law regarding the elements necessary to pursue a TCPA claim.” Id. at 3 (quoting Simpson v. J.G. Wentworth Co., 2023 WL 3029820 , at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2023)). Defendant anticipates the Drazen en banc decision will provide “clear, controlling precedent governing the Article III standing of members within TCPA class actions . . .” Doc. 91 at 3. The parties are currently in the midst of class discovery, which Defendant characterizes as “costly” and “resource-consuming.” Id. Because it argues that many of the proposed class members do not have standing, it seeks a stay of these proceedings pending the outcome of the Drazen en banc decision. Id. After that decision, “the limits of the proposed class definition [can be] set before continuing with discovery.” Id. This Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). It may exercise this discretion to stay a case pending the resolution of related proceedings in another court. Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc’ns, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262 , 1264 (11th Cir. 2000). However, “[a] stay must not be ‘immoderate.’ ” Id. (quoting CTI- Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 1982)). Any stay must be properly limited in scope and may not be indefinite. Id. The parties here agree that a stay is appropriate. See docs. 91 & 92. Defendant compellingly argues that the forthcoming Drazen en banc decision will impact the parties’ litigation, and potentially save them time and resources during the class discovery phase. See generally doc. 91. Also, Defendant represents that the oral arguments in Drazen are set for June 12, 2023, and that no extensions of the briefing schedule will be granted. Id. at 7. Given the relatively minimal delay, and cognizant of the efficiencies that a stay would promote, see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Robinson v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 220 F. Supp. 3d 1353, 1355 (S.D. Ga. 2016) (Baker, M.J.), the unopposed motion to stay is GRANTED. Doc. 91. All deadlines in this case are STAYED until November 27, 20238, or until the Eleventh Circuit issues its en banc decision in Drazen, whichever is earlier. See Ortega Trujillo, 221 F. 3d at 1264 (“When a district court exercises its discretion to stay a case pending the resolution of related proceedings in another forum, the district court must limit properly the scope of the stay.”). If the Drazen appeal is still pending at that time, the parties may seek an extension of the stay. The parties are DIRECTED to notify the Court within 14 days of the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc ruling in Drazen by filing a notice of the opinion’s issuance. SO ORDERED, this 25th day of May, 2028. barf CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA