McNorrill v. Asset Acceptance, LLC

Filing 29

ORDER STAYING CASE pending the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Johnson v. Midland Funding, LLC, at which time any party may move to lift the stay. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/04/2015. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

EVADNE S.

FORD,

on behalf of

*

herself and all others

*

similarly situated,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

*

v.

CV

115-031

CV

114-210

CV

114-227

*

QUANTUM3 GROUP, LLC and GALAXY
PORTFOLIOS, LLC,

*
*
*
*

Defendants.

JOSEPH MICHAEL McNORRILL,

*

on behalf of himself and all

*

others similarly situated,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*
*

v.

*

ASSET ACCEPTANCE,

*

LLC,

*

*

Defendant.

*

BRENDA WILLIS,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

v.

*

CAVALRY INVESTMENTS,

*

LLC,

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO SERVICES,

LLC,
*

*

Defendants.

ORDER

On April 29, 2015, the Court held a telephone status conference
with counsel for the above-captioned cases.

The purpose

of that

conference was to discuss the appropriateness of a stay in all three

proceedings pending the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' disposition
of Johnson v. Midland Funding,

LLC, No. 15-11240

(11th Cir. Mar. 24,

2015).

More

specifically,

the

proceed with the pending motions

Court
to

presented

dismiss

as

its

the

reluctance

to

Eleventh Circuit

currently is in the process of addressing a dispositive issue.
In each of
same

counsel,

litigation

the
who

could

three
has

cases,

one

result

in

Plaintiffs

primary

undue

are

represented by the

objection:

delay

and

that

staying

piecemeal

the

litigation.

Defendants in both Ford and Willis both recognized that a

stay would

be appropriate given the similarity of issues between their respective
cases and Johnson.

expressed its

Asset Acceptance, LLC, the defendant in McNorrill,

belief

that

the

preclusion issue

in

Johnson does

not

impact its statute of limitations defenses and thus the Court could
rule on its pending motion to dismiss on a separate ground.
Nonetheless,
matter.

It

is

the

Court

finds

stay

that

well-established

a

a

is

appropriate

district

court

in

this

may

stay

proceedings either on its own or on a motion of the parties.
e.g. , Landis v. N. Am.

(1936).

Water Works

& Elec.

Co.,

299 U.S.

See,

248,

254

Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has held that "[a] variety of

circumstances may justify a district court stay pending the resolution
of a related case in another court."

Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co.

Commc'ns, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000).

Indeed, a stay

"sometimes is authorized simply as a means of controlling the district
court's docket and of managing cases before the district court."

Id.

Even so, "[w]hen 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."

Id.

Each of these cases turns on the interplay between the Fair Debt
Collection

Practices

Act

PFDCPA")
2

and

the

Bankruptcy

Code,

particularly in reference to the filing of time-barred proofs of claim
in bankruptcy proceedings.

The issue before the Eleventh Circuit is

essentially the same: Does the Bankruptcy Code preclude an FDCPA claim
based

on

counsel

Eleventh

the

filing

recognized

Circuit

in

in

of

a

the

proof
status

Johnson

of

claim?

Indeed,

conference,

would

prove

as

Plaintiffs'

an affirmance

dispositive

to

from

all

the

three

cases.

Accordingly,

each of

the

above-captioned cases

shall

be

STAYED

pending the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Johnson v. Midland Funding,
LLC,

at which time any party may move to lift the stay.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

~pK-—day of May, 2015.

HOlSHQRAfiUE^J. RANDAL HALL

UNITEdIsTATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA