Pendleton v. 1st Financial Bank, USA, No. 4:2016cv04171 - Document 26 (D.S.D. 2017)
Court Description: 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
<![CDATA[
Pendleton v. 1st Financial Bank, USA Doc. 26 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 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
