Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Wright v. Exp Realty, LLC

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division

February 7, 2020, Decided; February 7, 2020, Filed

Case No: 6:18-cv-1851-Orl-40EJK

Opinion

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 94), filed January 22, 2020. On February 5, 2020, Plaintiffs responded in opposition. (Doc. 96). Upon consideration, Defendant's motion is due to be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs initiated this action on October 30, 2018, and filed their Amended Complaint on January 24, 2019 (Doc. 30), seeking recovery against Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). On October 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 68), [*2]  in an attempt to address what they describe as a "pervasive problem emanating from the real estate industry." (Id.). Plaintiffs argue that real estate brokers are violating the TCPA by allowing realtors to: "(1) purchase leads lists of consumers with whom the realtors and the brokerages have no relationship and (2) repeatedly cold calling them to solicit real estate listings using calling platforms that include the ability to autodial and transmit prerecorded voice messages . . . ." (Id.).

Defendant now moves to stay these proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in William P. Barr v. Am. Ass'n Political Consultants Inc., et al., Case No. 19-631. (Doc. 94).

II. DISCUSSION

District courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Nevertheless, staying a matter is an extraordinary measure that should only be employed to further the ends of justice, and the district court should resolve any doubts against issuing a stay. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Sullivan, No. 8:13-CV-385, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73815, 2013 WL 2285079, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2013).

Defendant asks the Court to stay proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in Barr v. Am. Ass'n Political Consultants because it has the "potential to moot this action, as the Supreme Court is reviewing [*3]  whether the statute on which Plaintiff relies — the TCPA — is constitutional." (Doc. 94, p. 1). Plaintiff argues that "[s]imply because eXp hopes the Supreme Court will overturn the Fourth Circuit's decision—and change clear Eleventh Circuit law—does not warrant a stay pending the decision in Barr." (Doc. 97, p. 1).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43378 *; 2020 WL 1149906

BRUCE WRIGHT, JORGE VALDES and EDWIN DIAZ, Plaintiffs, v. EXP REALTY, LLC, Defendant.

Prior History: Wright v. eXp Realty, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96516 (M.D. Fla., June 7, 2019)

CORE TERMS

stay of proceedings, district court, proceedings, listings, realtors, upcoming