Case 3:15-cv-00012-CAR Document 10 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 6

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHEMIDDLEDISTRICTOFGEORGIA
ATHENSDIVISION

MELISSABROWNand
BENJENKINS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

:
:
:

:
No.3:15CV12(CAR)
RIGHTSCORP,INC.,aNevada
:

Corporation,f/k/aSteviaAgritech
:
Corp.;RIGHTSCORP,INC.,
:
:
aDelawareCorporation;and
DOES110,inclusive,
:

:
Defendants.
:
___________________________________:

ORDERONMOTIONTOSTAY

BeforetheCourtisDefendantRightscorp,Inc.sMotiontoStay[Doc.7]thiscase.

PlaintiffsMelissaBrownandBenJenkinshaverespondedandopposetheMotion[Doc.
8]. Having considered the Motion, the response thereto, and the applicable law, the
CourtDENIEStheMotiontoStay.
On February 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this suit alleging that Rightscorp made
automatedtelephonecallsandtextmessagestotheircellularphonesinviolationofthe
TelephoneConsumerProtectionAct(TCPA),47U.S.C.227etseq.Rightscorpfiled
an answer and the instant Motion to Stay this case. In support of the Motion,
Rightscorp argues that Plaintiffs claims are subsumed by a putative class action
currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of

Case 3:15-cv-00012-CAR Document 10 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 6

California, Blaha v. Rightscorp, Inc., et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:14cv9032DSF(JCG),
wherein the plaintiff alleges that Rightscorp violated the TCPA through similar
conduct. Rightscorp requests that this Court stay the current proceedings pending a
rulingontheanticipatedmotionforclasscertificationinBlahabecausePlaintiffsinthis
case will likely be members of that class. Rightscorp further represents that the
deadlineforfilingamotionforclasscertificationinBlahaisJuly27,2015,andifsucha
motionisfiled,Rightscorpwillopposeit.Inresponse,PlaintiffsarguetheCourtshould
not stay this case because no class has been certified in Blaha, and, even if one is
ultimatelycertified,Plaintiffswilloptoutoftheclass.
[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and
effortfor itself, for counsel, and for litigants.1 Although a district court has inherent
authority to stay a case, this power must not be exercised lightly.2 The courts
discretion must be guided by concern for the interests of all the parties and the
interestsofthecourtinanorderlydispositionofitscaseload.3Thepartyseekingastay
mustmakeoutaclearcaseofhardshiporinequityinbeingrequiredtogoforward.4
Whendeterminingwhetherastayisappropriate,acourtmayconsidertheprudential

Landisv.N.Am.Co.,299U.S.248,254(1936).
HomeIns.Co.v.CoastalLumberCo.,575F.Supp.1081,1083(N.D.Ga.1983).
3Id.
4Landis,299U.S.at255.
2
1
2

Case 3:15-cv-00012-CAR Document 10 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 6

advantagesofastay,butmustalsoexaminetherelativeprejudiceandhardshipworked
oneachpartyifastayisorisnotgranted.5
Inthiscase,RightscorpurgestheCourttostaythecurrentproceedingspursuant
to the firsttofile rule. Under this rule, [w]here two actions involving overlapping
issues and parties are pending in two federal courts, there is a strong presumption
acrossthefederalcircuitsthatfavorstheforumofthefirstfiledsuit.6Thus,whenthe
ruleapplies,thecourtinitiallyseizedofthecontroversyshouldhearthecase.7The
policybehindtheruleistoavoidthewasteofduplication,toavoidrulingswhichmay
trench upon the authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues
thatcallforauniformresult.8Rightscorparguesthatthefirsttofilerulewarrantsa
stayinthiscasebecausetheBlahacasewasfiledfirstand involvesoverlapping issues
andpartieswiththecaseatbar.
TheCourt,however,findsthatthefirsttofileruledoesnotapplybecausethese
two cases do not involve overlapping parties. For the firsttofile rule to apply, the
partiesneednotbeidentical,butthepartiesmustsubstantial[ly]overlap.9[I]nthe

Fitzerv.Am.Inst.ofBaking,Inc.,No.CV209169,2010WL1955974,at*1(S.D.Ga.May13,2010)(internal
quotationmarksomitted).
6Manuelv.ConvergysCorp.,430F.3d1132,1135(11thCir.2005).
7CollegiateLicensingCo.v.Am.Cas.Co.ofReading,Pa.,713F.3d71,78(11thCir.2013).
8Petersonv.Aarons,Inc.,No.1:14CV1919TWT,2015WL224750,at*1(N.D.Ga.Jan.15,2015)(quoting
CadleCo.v.WhataburgerofAlice,Inc.,174F.3d599,603(5thCir.1999)(internalquotationmarksomitted)).
9Peterson,2015WL224750,at*2(citationomitted).
3
5

Case 3:15-cv-00012-CAR Document 10 Filed 07/09/15 Page 4 of 6

contextofclassactionlawsuits...itistheclass,nottheclassrepresentatives,thatare
relevantforpurposesofthefirsttofilerule.10
Here,thereisnosubstantialoverlapbetweenthepartiesbecausePlaintiffsinthis
casearenotpartiesinBlaha,asnoclassencompassingtheirclaimshasbeencertified.11
Furthermore,whetheraclasswillultimatelybecertifiedatthisjunctureisspeculativeat
best.Forone,theBlahaplaintiffmay notfileamotiontocertifytheclassandinstead
choosetoproceedwithhisclaimsindividually.12Second,amotionforclasscertification
could be denied by the court.13 Third, even if the court certifies the class in Blaha,
Plaintiffsinthiscasemaybeprovidedwiththeopportunitytooptoutoftheclassand
pursue their claims individually. Specifically, if the court certifies the class under
FederalRuleofCivilProcedure23(b)(3),members havethe unconditional righttoopt

Id.(citationsomitted).
See In re Feggins, No. 1311319WRS, 2014 WL 7185376, at *2 (Bankr. M.D.Ala. Dec. 16, 2014) ([T]he
putativeclassmembersarenotpartiesunlessanduntilaclassiscertified.).
12SeeDubeev.P.F.ChangsChinaBistro,Inc.,No.C1001937WHA,2010WL3323808,at*2(N.D.Cal.Aug.
23,2010)(findingpartieswerenotsubstantiallysimilarintwoputativeclassactionsbecausetheplaintiff
inthepreviouslyfiledsuitdidnotfileamotiontocertifytheclass).
13TheCourtrecognizesthereisauthorityforthepropositionthatacaseshouldbestayedevenwhenthe
classcertificationissueispendinginanearlierfiledaction.See,e.g.,Askinv.QuakerOatsCo.,No.11CV
111,2012WL517491,at*4(N.D.Ill.Feb.15,2012);Wisev.Glickman,257F.Supp.2d123,13233(D.D.C.
2003). However, those cases are distinguishable from the case at bar because they were putative class
actions,notindividualactions.SeeHarrisv.McDonnell,No.5:13CV00077,2013WL5720355,at*4(W.D.
Va.Oct.18,2013)(findingpartieswerenotsubstantiallysimilarforpurposesofthefirsttofilerulewhere
thefirstactionwasfiledasanindividualactionandthesecondwasfiledasaputativeclassaction,and
theindividualplaintiffinthefirstactionrequestedtobeexcludedfromtheputativeclassinthesecond
case).
10
11

Case 3:15-cv-00012-CAR Document 10 Filed 07/09/15 Page 5 of 6

out of the class. 14 Alternatively, if the class is certified under Rule 23(b)(2), the court
mayexerciseitsdiscretiontoallowclassmemberstooptout.15GivenPlaintiffsstated
intent to opt out of the class, if certified, the Court cannot find that the parties
substantiallyoverlapatthistime.Accordingly,thefirsttofileruledoesnotapply.
Moreover, the Court notes that Defendants position in this case is somewhat
inconsistent with the position it intends to take in Blahanamely, Defendant asks the
Court to stay this case pending class certification in Blaha, yet expresses that it will
oppose any motion to certify class the class in that case. As it is opposing class
certification in B[laha], it cannot properly take a position premised on the assumption
thataclasswillbecertifiedinB[laha].16
Finally, the Court finds that a stay of this action will likely prejudice Plaintiffs.
Much of the evidence and witnesses are in this district, and Plaintiffs have a strong
interest in pursuing their claims in the chosen forum. Moreover, staying this case to
await a ruling on a motion that has not yet been filed will delay discovery for an
indefinite time. If too much time passes, witnesses may be difficult to find, memories
willfade,andevidencemaybelost.

SeeFed.R.Civ.P.23(c)(2)(B)(ForanyclasscertifiedunderRule23(b)(3),thecourtmustdirecttoclass
members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances . . . . The notice must clearly and
concisely state in plain, easily understood language . . . that the court will exclude from the class any
memberwhorequestsexclusion).
15SeeHolmesv.ContlCanCo.,706F.2d1144,1154(11thCir.1983)(citingPensonv.TerminalTransportCo.,
634F.2d989,993(5thCir.1981)).
16InreFeggins,2014WL7185376,at*3.
5
14

Case 3:15-cv-00012-CAR Document 10 Filed 07/09/15 Page 6 of 6

Accordingly,RightscorpsMotiontoStay[Doc.7]isDENIEDwithoutprejudice.
IftheBlahacourtcertifiesaclassofwhichPlaintiffsaremembers,andPlaintiffscannot
ordonotoptoutoftheclass,Rightscorpmayrenewitsrequestforastay.
SOORDERED,this9thdayofJune,2015.
S/C.AshleyRoyal
C.ASHLEYROYAL
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTJUDGE