Opinion
Case No: 6:15-cv-465-Orl-18GJK
11-10-2015
ALETHA K. MACKIEWICZ, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes for consideration on Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC's ("Nationstar") Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling By United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court (the "Motion") (Doc. 27). Plaintiff Aletha Mackiewicz responded in opposition (Doc. 29). Nationstar contends that "two important legal issues that may be dispositive of this case" are currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the United States Supreme Court, and asks the Court to stay these proceedings until those cases are decided. (Doc. 27 at 1.)
A district court's "power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket . . . [and] calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In the Middle District of Florida, courts consider several factors when evaluating a request for a stay, including prejudice to the non-moving party, whether the requested stay would simplify and clarify the issues, and whether the potential stay would reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court. See, e.g., Freedom Sci., Inc. v. Enhanced Vision Sys., No. 8:11-CIV-1194-T-17-AEP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11410, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2012).
Here, the Court finds that a stay is warranted. Mackiewicz does not argue that a stay would prejudice her in any non-trivial way, and the Court cannot conceive of any significant prejudicial effects that would result from a stay order. Furthermore, a stay would assist the Court in simplifying and clarifying the law to be applied and issues to be decided. Mackiewicz concedes as much in her response when she observes that at least one count of the Complaint implicates a core issue involved in the Spokeo case currently before the Supreme Court—whether Article III standing may be conferred upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm. (Doc. 29 at 5.) Further guidance on this issue and the ACA International question before the D.C. Circuit—the proper scope of the phrase "automatic telephone dialing system" within the Telephone Consumer Protection Act—would allow the Court to render a more certain, correct, and clear decision. Finally, a stay would reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and the Court by allowing the Court to avoid issuing a dispositive Order in the midst of an uncertain legal environment.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Ruling By United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court (the "Motion") (Doc. 27), is hereby GRANTED.
2. This action is stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo , Inc. v. Robins , and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in ACA International.
3. Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, is ORDERED to file a status report every ninety (90) days commencing from the date of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Orlando, Florida, this 10 day of November, 2015.
/s/_________
G. KENDALL SHARP
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to:
Counsel of Record