BUXTON
v.
FULL SAIL, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court does not automatically change the law or warrant a stay of proceedings in lower courts.
Defendants moved to stay a putative TCPA class action pending a Supreme Court decision on a related case. The plaintiff opposed the motion.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants move to stay this putative TCPA [fn 1] class action pending the Supreme Court's decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23- 1226, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 3060 (Oct. 4, 2024), which granted a petition for writ of certiorari to True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., Nos. 22-15710, 22-15732, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28346 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023). (See Dkts. 86 & 89.) Plaintiff opposes the motion. (See Dkt. 86 at 9.) For the reasons outlined below, the court denies the motion.
"District courts have unquestionable authority to control their own dockets.” Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F. 3d 1253, 1262 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). “This authority includes 'broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them.” Id. (quoting Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123
F. 3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997)). Accordingly, courts have “broad discretion over the management of pre[]trial activities, including discovery and scheduling." Johnson v. Bd. of Regents, 263 F. 3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001). A party moving for a stay “bears the burden of showing good cause and reasonableness.” Feldman v. Flood, 176 F.R.D. 651, 652 (M.D. Fla. 1997) (quoting Simpson v. Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc., 121 F.R.D. 261, 263 (M.D.N.C. 1988)).
Defendants' motion to stay does not demonstrate good cause or reasonableness because "a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court does not in itself change the law" and in similar contexts “other district courts have denied motions to stay.” McCaskill v. Navient Sols., Inc., No. 8:15-cv-1559-T-33TBM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187045, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2015); accord Heidarpour v. Cent. Payment Co., No. 4:15-CV- 139(CDL), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175276, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 25, 2015) (denying the defendant's motion to stay the putative TCPA class action pending the Supreme Court's decision in a Ninth Circuit case to which it had granted a petition for writ of certiorari); cf. Gissendaner v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 779 F. 3d 1275, 1284 (11th Cir. 2015) ("refusing to assign precedential significance to grants of certiorari").
Accordingly, the motion to stay (Dkt. 86) is DENIED.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on November 20, 2024.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
[fn 1]: Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Bd. OF Regents OF THE Univ. OF Ga., 263 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 750 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2014)