ST. LOUIS - U.S. District Judge John A. Ross has ruled for defendants Henry Schein Practice Solutions and Integrated Media Solutions' joint motion to stay a class-action complaint alleging the defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Plaintiff BPP filed suit earlier this year claiming the defendants sent unsolicited fax ads without a proper opt-out notice as required by federal law.
The defendants had asked that the action be stayed pending a decision at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of St. Louis Heart Center Inc. v. Nomax Inc.
At issue on appeal in that case is standing, which Nomax argues cannot be based on a "bare procedural violation of a federal statute divorced from any concrete harm."
"Defendants argue that resolution of Nomax 'could significantly curtail or extinguish altogether Plaintiff’s claims because the standing question presented in Nomax is identical to the standing issue presented in this case,'" Ross wrote.
Ross also wrote that defendants further argued that a stay would "preserve judicial and party resources and would not prejudice BPP because the case is in its infancy, discovery has not yet commenced, and the trial date is approximately 16 months away."
They further argued that if their request to stay were turned down all parties would be prejudiced "because they would incur significant expense in discovery 'only to later find out that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this case,’" Ross's ruling states.
"Defendants also maintain that Nomax has been fully briefed and is likely to be decided within the next six months, and that BPP will suffer no damage from a stay because a modest delay in receiving money damages is not prejudicial and the conduct challenged in the Complaint has already stopped," it states.
Ross wrote that he was not persuaded by BPP's argument that a decision by this court in the Nomax case is an "outlier in the law" and that federal courts nationwide have been rejecting defense motions challenging standing in TCPA cases.
BPP also had argued that parties had "already expended significant judicial and party resources due to failed attempts at early mediation," and that the defense had not explained "a good excuse" for why they had not stayed the action in a more timely fashion.
Finally, BPP had argued that it would be prejudiced if the judge were to stay the case due to a risk of evidence being lost.
"In light of the Eighth Circuit’s pending decision in Nomax, and in the interest of reaching consistent results in similar TCPA cases, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to stay this case," Ross wrote. "The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced by such a stay, as the case is in the early stages of litigation. Furthermore, the Court believes that a stay will preserve the resources of the parties, as well as the Court, which weighs in favor of a stay."