In Shupe v. Bank of America NA, 2015 WL 1120010 (D.Ariz. 2015), Judge Zipps affirmed a Magistrate’s recommendation that a plaintiff’s TCPA claim be dismissed because the calls were to land-lines and not cellular telephones.
In addition to the foregoing argument, the Plaintiffs assert once again that the TCPA not only prohibits calls to residential lines using artificial or prerecorded voice messages, but also calls made using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). Response, p. 10. The support for this argument, Plaintiffs contend, is found in Satterfield v. Simon and Schuster, 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir.2009). In that decision, the Ninth Circuit did indeed note that the Federal Communications Commission had stated “that under the TCPA, it is unlawful to make any call using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded message to any wireless telephone number.” Id. at 953. It is apparent, however, that the court, by referencing wireless telephones, was not discussing section 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA, but section 227(b)(1)(A). Under the latter section, a cause of action exists where (1) the defendant called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system; (3)without the recipient’s prior written consent.” Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 707 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir.2012). In this case, it is undisputed that BANA called the Plaintiffs’ residential line and not a cellular phone. That fact undermines the Plaintiffs’ contention that BANA’s use of an ATDS violated the TCPA. The use of such equipment is not prohibited when calls are made to residential lines. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).