PITTENGER v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, 2:20-cv-10606

Plaintiff Joseph Pittenger alleges FNBO placed more than 350 calls to his cell phone between July–December 2019 and continued after he said he could not pay.
Complaint (filed March 6, 2020) asserts two counts: TCPA violation for calls using an ATDS or prerecorded voice and intrusion upon seclusion for harassing collection calls.
Court set a discovery schedule (discovery to Feb. 12, 2021; dispositive motions due Mar. 12, 2021; trial July 27, 2021).
FNBO moved to stay the case pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Facebook v. Duguid, arguing Duguid could resolve whether FNBO’s dialing systems qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS) and thus potentially be dispositive.
Pittenger opposed the stay, arguing discovery is necessary regardless of Duguid (including on prerecorded-message allegations and the intrusion claim) and that Duguid may not fully resolve issues here.
The court denied the stay, reasoning Duguid likely would not be fully dispositive, discovery was at an early stage, stays are disfavored, and delaying discovery risks loss of evidence and prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay proceedings pending SCOTUS decision in Facebook v. Duguid	Pittenger: discovery needed now; Duguid won’t resolve prerecorded-message or intrusion claims	FNBO: Duguid may narrow ATDS definition and render TCPA claim meritless, saving resources	Stay denied — Duguid unlikely to be fully dispositive; discovery should proceed
Whether Duguid will resolve whether FNBO’s systems qualify as an ATDS	Pittenger: factual discovery needed to determine system capabilities and willfulness regardless	FNBO: systems dialed from customer lists, not random/sequential generators, so may fall outside ATDS if Duguid limits definition	Court noted circuit split; did not decide ATDS issue here and declined to delay discovery pending SCOTUS

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (court has inherent discretion to stay proceedings but must exercise cautiously)
Ohio Environmental Council v. U.S. District Court, 565 F.2d 393 (6th Cir. 1977) (stays disfavored; parties have right to timely resolution)
Caspar v. Snyder, 77 F. Supp. 3d 616 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (factors for stay include potential dispositive effect of other case, hardship, public interest)
Gadelhak v. AT&T Services, 950 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2020) (ATDS limited to devices using random or sequential number generators)
Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., 948 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2020) (same narrow ATDS interpretation)
Dominguez v. Yahoo, Inc., 894 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2018) (same narrow ATDS interpretation)
Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018) (broader ATDS interpretation: equipment with capacity to store and automatically dial numbers)
Duran v. La Boom Disco, Inc., 955 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2020) (broader ATDS interpretation)
Allan v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, 968 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2020) (6th Circuit adopted broader ATDS interpretation)