GARCIA v. SPRUCE SERVICES INC (2023)

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.

This case arises from the alleged receipt by each Plaintiff of “at least one” unsolicited text message from Defendant and was removed on the basis of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d). (Notice of Removal, Ex. A., Am. Compl. [ECF No. 1-1] ¶ 14). The receipt of an unsolicited text message is insufficient to establish Article III standing in this Circuit. See generally Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019). While that principle was recently reaffirmed in Drazen v. Pinto, 41 F.4th 1354, 1362 (11th Cir. 2022) — a case that addressed a consumer's Article III standing to bring claims for the receipt of unsolicited calls and text messages — it is at odds with the position of other Circuits, see, e.g., Gadelhak v. AT&T Servs., Inc., 950 F.3d 458, 462 (7th Cir. 2020) (Barrett, J.), and perhaps in tension with recent Supreme Court precedent, see generally TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021). On March 13, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the panel decision in Drazen and agreed to rehear the case en banc. See generally Drazen v. Pinto, 61 F.4th 1297 (11th Cir. 2023).

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997) (citation omitted); see also Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1269 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e accord district courts broad discretion over the management of pre-trial activities, including discovery and scheduling.” (alteration added; citations omitted)). Indeed, “[t]he inherent discretionary authority of the district court to stay litigation pending the outcome of [a] related proceeding ․ is not questioned.” CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 1982) (alterations added; citations omitted). Finally, in the “interest of judicial economy,” courts can “order a stay of [a] proceeding pending the outcome of [an] appeal.” Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, No. 08-80134-Civ, 2011 WL 13107422, at *4 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2011) (alterations added).

This case will involve issues like those that the Eleventh Circuit may resolve en banc in Drazen, as evidenced by Plaintiffs’ intent to rely on Salcedo in their anticipated motion to remand. (See Joint Disc. Plan and Scheduling Report [ECF No. 12] 2). “Given the impact the decision in [Drazen] is likely to have on this case ․ the prudent course is to stay the action.” Glover v. LM Gen. Ins. Co., No. 19-21900-Civ, 2019 WL 7945690, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2019).

Therefore, to better manage the orderly progress of this case and conserve the parties’ and judicial resources, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. This matter is STAYED pending the Eleventh Circuit's forthcoming en banc decision in Drazen v. Pinto, No. 21-10199 (11th Cir. 2023).

2. The parties shall provide the Court with status updates regarding the status of this case and of the en banc rehearing in Drazen every sixty (60) days beginning May 19, 2023.

3. The case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED, for statistical purposes only, without prejudice to the substantive rights of any of the parties.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 20th day of March, 2023.

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE