Pendleton v. 1st Financial Bank, USA

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 18 Motion to Stay. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 9/11/17. (SLW)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA PlhED ' ^ I 20,7 SOUTHERN DIVISION LINDA PENDLETON,on behalf of * herself, and all others similarly situated, * CIV 16-4171 * Plaintiff, * * vs. * 1st FINANCIAL BANK,USA MEMORANDUM OPINION AND * ORDER DENYING MOTION TO * STAY PROCEEDINGS * Defendant. * * Plaintiff, Linda Pendleton ("Pendleton"), filed a putative elass action Complaint against Defendant, 1st Financial Bank, USA ("1st Financial"), seeking damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act("TCPA"),47 U.S.C. § 227. The Complaint alleges that 1st Financial used an automatic telephone dialing system("ATDS")and "an artificial or prerecorded voice"system to call Pendleton's cellular telephone sometimes multiple times a day, attempting to collect an alleged debt owed by her adult son. 1st Financial moves to stay this case pending a ruling by the D.C. Circuit in a case involving the definition of an ATDS.(Doe. 18.) Pendleton resists the motion. For the following reasons, the motion to stay will be denied. BACKGROUND The TCPA makes it unlawful "to make any call... using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any... cellular telephone service ... or any service for which the called party is charged for the call, unless such call is made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States." 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l)(A)(iii). Congress defined the term "automatic telephone dialing system" as "equipment which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and to dial such numbers." 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1)(A) and (B). Congress vested the Federal Communication

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?