Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. v. Solstice Benefits, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S., P.L.L.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 22-cv-10830
v. 	Honorable Linda V. Parker
SOLSTICE 	and
JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS (ECF NOS. 182
& 186) AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
(ECF NO. 190), MOTION TO STAY (ECF NO. 194), AND MOTION TO SET
STATUS CONFERENCE (ECF NO. 195)
This is a lawsuit filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(“TCPA”). The action arises from a single, one-page fax sent on behalf of
Defendant Solstice Benefits, Inc. (“Defendant”) to dental providers, including
Plaintiff Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S., P.L.L.C. (“Plaintiff”), on or about April 23,
2018. (ECF No. 1 at PageID.2; ECF No. 1-1 at PageID.18.)
The motion presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for
Class Certification. (ECF No. 182 [redacted], 186 [sealed].) Defendant has filed
several related “time sensitive” motions including: (1) a Motion to Strike the
Case 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI ECF No. 196, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Renewed Motion for Class Certification (ECF No. 190); (2) a Motion to Stay
Briefing on the Renewed Motion Pending Resolution of the Motion to Strike (ECF
No. 194); and (3) a Motion for Status Conference on the class certification issue
(ECF No 195). The Parties also filed cross-motions for summary judgement on
November 18, 2025. (ECF Nos. 180 & 184.)
The Court denies Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Class Certification without
prejudice. The Court will first await full briefing on the Parties’ cross-motions for
summary judgment. If Plaintiff’s claims survive, the Court will then consider
whether renewed consideration of class certification is necessary. As a note, the
Court found it unnecessary and burdensome to clutter the docket with three
additional motions — and to email the Court’s case manager — to draw attention
to this issue. Such actions make it more difficult for the Court to manage its
docket and resolve issues efficiently.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion
for Class Certification (ECF No. 182 [redacted], 186 [sealed]) and DENIES AS
MOOT Defendant’s related motions (ECF Nos. 190, 194, & 195).
SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 2, 2025
Case 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI ECF No. 196, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 2