Farnham, Kristie v. Caribou Coffee Company

Filing 47

ORDER denying without prejudice 12 Motion to Stay; denying as moot 22 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 3/9/17. (jat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KRISTIE FARNHAM, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARIBOU COFFEE COMPANY, INC.,

ORDER
16-cv-295-wmc

Defendant.
In this civil action, plaintiff Kristie Farnham asserts claims on behalf of herself
individually and a putative class for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., based on defendant Caribou Coffee Company, Inc.’s alleged
use of an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) to send text messages to
plaintiff’s cellular phone without her prior express consent.

Before the court is

defendants’ motion to stay this case pending a decision by the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on a consolidated appeal of the Federal Communication
Commission’s July 10, 2015, TCPA Declaratory Ruling and Order. (Dkt. #12.) The
court will deny the motion for the same reasons provided in the court’s order on a related
motion to stay also issued today in Hogen v. Prof’l Serv. Bureau, Inc., No. 16-cv-602 (W.D.
Wis.). 1

In this case, plaintiff argues that her claims do not turn on the definition of ATDS. This is
different than the reasons provided by the plaintiffs in Hogen for denying the stay, but the court
finds this argument also supports a finding that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling may not be dispositive of
plaintiff’s claims, as was also the case in Hogen.

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay (dkt. #12) is
DENIED without prejudice should the circumstances change; plaintiff’s motion for leave
to file sur-reply (dkt. #22) is DENIED as moot.
Entered this 9th day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
__________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

2