Franklin v. Navient, Inc. et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Defendants' motion to stay (D.I. 59 ) is GRANTED and the case is STAYED pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc., No. 19-631. Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment (D.I. 43) and motion for leave to file new evidence in support of motion for reconsideration (D.I. 62 ) are DISMISSED without prejudice to renew upon lifting of the stay. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/1/2020. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RICKY R. FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 17-1640-RGA

MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this 1st day of April, 2020, having considered Defendants’ motion
to stay (D.I. 59), which is opposed by Plaintiff;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (D.I. 59) is GRANTED and the case is
STAYED pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Barr v. American
Ass’n of Political Consultants, Inc., No. 19-631, for the following reasons:
1.

On September 5, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment as to Count I, the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act claim, and, as to
Counts II and III, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, on all telephone calls
that took place after November 2, 2015 because Plaintiff’s debts were guaranteed by
the United States and, following the November 2015 Budget Act Amendments, the plain
language of the TCPA is unambiguous that calls made solely to collect U.S.-guaranteed
debts are exempt from its coverage. (D.I. 40, 41). The Court denied summary
judgment on the TCPA claims in Counts II and III that relate to telephone calls that took
place January through March 2015. (Id.).
1

2.

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend judgment

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). (D.I. 43, 44). In his supporting brief, Plaintiff makes
several arguments to support his position, including that the Court’s rulings on the
motion for summary judgment were contrary to decisions from the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits that declared the debt-collection exception
flawed, severed it from the TCPA as unconstitutional, and left intact the remainder of the
TCPA. (See D.I. 44 at 8). The cases are American Association of Political
Consultants, Inc. v. FCC, 923 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2019) and Duguid v. Facebook, Inc.,
926 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019).
3.

On January 28, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to stay, following the

United State Supreme Court’s grant of a writ of certiorari in Barr v. American Ass’n of
Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 812, No. 19-631 (Jan. 10, 2020), to review the
Fourth Circuit’s decision in American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. v. FCC.
(D.I. 59). While Defendants contend that the Court need not reach the constitutionality
of the Budget Act Amendments in ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend
judgment, they request a stay should the Court consider the issue. Plaintiff opposes a
stay and argues that the issue before the Supreme Court is a narrow one, and one
which has no impact on this case. A pretrial conference is scheduled in the instant
case for April 29, 2020, and trial is scheduled for May 27, 2020. (See D.I. 56, 58).
4.

Based on the Supreme Court docket, including the petition for a writ of

certiorari, I conclude that a stay is warranted. In his Rule 59(e) motion, Plaintiff raises
the issue of the constitutionality of the government debt collection exemption of the
2

TCPA, one of the issues that is now before the United States Supreme Court. The
Supreme Court’s decision may have an impact on future rulings in this case.
Therefore, the Court will grant the motion to stay.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment (D.I. 43) and motion for leave to file
new evidence in support of motion for reconsideration (D.I. 62) are DISMISSED without
prejudice to renew upon lifting of the stay.

/s/ Richard G. Andrews
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3