Alexander v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 4:16-cv-03318

Background

Plaintiff Tamara Alexander alleges Convergent Outsourcing sent post‑limitations debt‑collection letters that (a) stated a "total balance" and a lower "settlement offer" and (b) failed to disclose that the statute of limitations barred suit or that a partial payment would revive the limitations period, violating the FDCPA.
The Fifth Circuit in Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing addressed an identical letter and held it violated the FDCPA, citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), and 1692f.
Alexander seeks certification of a Texas class of consumers who received similar letters after the limitations period expired.
Convergent moved to stay this Texas action because a nearly identical class action (Ross v. Convergent Outsourcing) in the District of Colorado filed a joint motion for conditional nationwide class certification and preliminary approval of a global settlement that would subsume the Texas class.
The court previously granted a 60‑day stay; after developments in Ross (motions to intervene, including by Alexander), Convergent requested an extension. Alexander opposes extending the stay but moved to intervene in Ross, contributing to delay.
The court found a short, limited stay appropriate (to await resolution of the motions to intervene and provide guidance about the nationwide class/settlement) and granted the stay until October 16, 2017 or 14 days after resolution of the Ross motions to intervene, whichever is earlier, with status deadlines and a status conference set.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay this Texas action pending resolution of the Colorado (Ross) litigation and possible nationwide settlement	Alexander argued delay harms Texas plaintiffs and Convergent might exhaust assets in a nationwide settlement, leaving Texas claimants unpaid	Convergent argued the Colorado nationwide settlement would subsume the Texas class and staying conserves judicial resources	Court granted a limited stay until Oct 16, 2017 or 14 days after Ross motions to intervene are resolved, with status updates and a status conference scheduled
Whether a stay would be indefinite or immoderate	Alexander argued the Ross proceedings were taking too long and a prolonged stay would unfairly delay relief	Convergent noted consolidation by the nationwide class and need to avoid duplicative litigation	Court acknowledged concern about indefinite stays but found a short, defined stay appropriate to await intervenor rulings and likely simplify matters
Prejudice to plaintiffs from a stay	Alexander asserted potential prejudice and risk of depleted defendant assets under a nationwide settlement	Convergent disputed any factual basis that a settlement would deplete assets to deny recovery to Texas plaintiffs	Court found no factual support for Alexander’s asset‑depletion concern and minimized prejudice given limited stay length
Impact on judicial economy and case management	Alexander argued delays; Convergent argued staying would avoid duplicative proceedings and simplify issues if nationwide settlement approved	Court concluded resolution of Ross motions would materially affect this case’s scope and management, justifying a short stay	Court balanced interests and stayed the case for a limited period to promote efficiency

Key Cases Cited

Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 836 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2016) (addressed identical letter and held it violated the FDCPA)
Ambraco, Inc. v. Bossclip B.V., 570 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2009) (district courts have inherent power to stay cases to manage dockets)
Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1936) (standards for stays to promote efficient use of judicial resources)
Ventura v. David’s Bridal, 248 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 2001) (stay authority and related considerations)
Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp., 706 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1983) (stays must be reasonable in duration; indefinite stays disfavored)
McKnight v. Blanchard, 667 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1982) (stay orders reversible if immoderate or indefinite)
Coker v. Select Energy Servs., LLC, 161 F. Supp. 3d 492 (S.D. Tex. 2015) (factors to consider when staying a case in light of parallel litigation)