September 20, 2020

Volume X, Number 264

September 18, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 17, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

The Battle is On!: First Reasoned Order Denying Stay of TCPA Case Pending Facebook Highlights What Not to Do When Seeking a Stay

In Komaiko v. Baker Techs., Case No. 19-cv-03795-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143953 (N.D. Cal.  Aug. 11, 2020) the defendant—a prominent CRM and text platform for the cannabis industry—saw its stay motion denied because it failed to deny allegations that its system has the capacity to dial randomly or sequentially. In denying the stay the Court reasoned that even if SCOTUS overturned Marks and adopted a narrower statutory definition it would have no result on the case—the capacity of the Defendant’s system to send random messages was sufficient for liability to be determined no matter what the Supreme Court rules.

Here is the key language:

Baker is notably evasive on a key fact: whether its software has the capacity to generate random numbers and call them, regardless of whether it used that capacity in sending the texts at issue.

Tsk. Tsk.

The Defendant’s oversight in Komaiko may be bad on them, but it easy enough to avoid for Defendants in TCPA cases more generally. When seeking a stay a Defendant should always specifically address the issue of the capacity of its system in addition to an explanation of how the specific messages/calls at issue were actually sent. With a firm denial that the system has the ability to operate randomly or sequentially the Court should be easily persuaded to stay the case and allow the Supremes to answer the lingering questions around the required ATDS functionalities.

In short, Komaiko should be an interesting, but rarely followed case. Notably this same defendant was already roughed up by this court in an extremely interesting ruling—issued on 4/20—that seemed to be a warning shot to cannabis dispensaries and platform providers. Perhaps it is unsurprising, therefore, that the Court took a close and skeptical look at its papers supporting a stay.

We’ll keep an eye on this.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 225


About this Author

Eric Troutman Class Action Attorney
Of Counsel

Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems.

Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous...