RICHARDS v. SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
WARREN RICHARDS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:25-cv-01385-TWP-TAB
)
SHEIN DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY
Defendant Shein Distribution Corporation has filed a motion seeking to stay this case
pending an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a separate case or, alternatively,
seeking to stay discovery pending a ruling on Defendant's motion to dismiss. [Filing No.
18.] Defendant's stay request is premised on the fact that the issue in this case—whether
unsolicited text messages constitute a "telephone call" for purposes of establishing a violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)—is pending before the Seventh
Circuit in Steidinger, et al v. Blackstone Medical Services, No. 25-2398. Plaintiff Warren
Richards opposes Defendant's request.
The Court finds it is appropriate to stay this case pending a ruling on the pending motion
to dismiss. That is precisely what Magistrate Judge Klump recently ruled in Richards v. Fashion
Nova, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01145-TWP-MKK (S.D. Ind. Oct. 27, 2025), ECF No. 35. The
undersigned need not repeat Judge Klump's sound analysis here. Suffice it to say that, as Judge
Klump properly recognized, given the Seventh Circuit appeal and the pending motion to
dismiss—either of which could bring this litigation to an end—the Court's broad discretion is
Case 1:25-cv-01385-TWP-TAB Document 32 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
best exercised in granting a stay. Doing so will simplify the issues, impose a minimal burden on
Plaintiff, and reduce the burden of litigation on the Court and the parties.
Although the undersigned typically prefers to avoid staying cases, Defendant has met its
burden to show that a stay is appropriate. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to stay proceedings
[Filing No. 18] is granted. This case is stayed pending a ruling on Defendant's motion to
dismiss. Defendant's request for oral argument is denied.
Distribution:
All ECF-registered counsel of record via email
Date: 11/4/2025
_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Case 1:25-cv-01385-TWP-TAB Document 32 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>