Pederson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

Background

Dan Pederson, Connor Olson, and Shell Wheeler brought proposed class-action claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. They alleged that the defendant sent unsolicited text messages using automated telephone equipment. The defendant had previously moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and alternatively sought to compel arbitration of Pederson’s claims. The court denied that motion on all grounds on June 8, 2020, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged standing and use of an automated dialing system and that the defendant had not shown an arbitration agreement.

The defendant then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for certification of the June 8 order for an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court enters a final judgment. The defendant also sought stays of the proceedings while pursuing that appeal and while appealing the denial of its request to compel arbitration.

Certification for Interlocutory Appeal

The court explained that § 1292(b) certification is reserved for exceptional cases. The moving party must show a controlling legal question, a substantial basis for disagreement about that question, and that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation.

The defendant identified two proposed questions. First, it argued that a single unsolicited text message did not create a sufficiently concrete injury under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court recognized that this could be a controlling question because a contrary ruling could end the claims of plaintiffs who received only one text message. But the court found that the limited authority cited by the defendant did not amount to a sufficient number of conflicting decisions to establish a substantial basis for disagreement.

Second, the defendant challenged whether the plaintiffs had adequately alleged use of an automated dialing system. The plaintiffs alleged both that the system sent messages to uploaded lists and that it could produce, store, and dial numbers randomly or sequentially. The court concluded that, even if later appellate decisions rejected the defendant’s theory about dialing from lists, the plaintiffs’ alternative allegations were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court also found that the defendant had not shown that the case was unusually complex, expensive, or prolonged enough to warrant immediate review.

The court therefore denied the defendant’s motion for certification under § 1292(b).

Requested Stays

Because the court denied certification for an interlocutory appeal, it denied as moot the defendant’s request to stay the proceedings pending that appeal.

The court separately considered the request to stay proceedings while the defendant appealed the denial of arbitration. It held that the appeal did not deprive the court of authority to continue handling the rest of the case, so a stay was not mandatory. Applying the factors for a discretionary stay, the court found that the defendant had not shown a likelihood of success on the arbitration appeal or the kind of serious harm required to justify a stay. The defendant had not shown a valid arbitration agreement, and the costs and inconvenience of continuing litigation did not qualify as that type of harm. The court therefore denied the stay pending the arbitration appeal.

Disposition

The court’s final order denied the defendant’s motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and for a stay of proceedings. The stay pending the proposed interlocutory appeal was denied as moot, and the stay pending the arbitration appeal was denied as neither mandatory nor warranted.