In Wright v. USAA Sav. Bank, No. 2:19-cv-00591 WBS CKD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90576 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2020), Judge Shubb found no revocation of consent under the TCPA where the consumer purposefully mailed the revocation letter to the wrong address.
Under the facts presented here, no reasonable trier of fact could find that plaintiff used reasonable means to revoke consent. Defendants never made the Las Vegas address known to customers, nor did they communicate to its customers that the Las Vegas address was an appropriate destination for customers’ account-related inquiries.1 Mr. Wright received over 200 statements and monthly payment reminders from the San Antonio address. (Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ SUF PP 9, 15.) Each of those documents listed the San Antonio address as the correct address for account-related correspondence. (Id. P 10.) Further, each of those documents listed USAA’s webpage as a resource, which also listed the San Antonio address as the appropriate mailing address. (Deenan Decl. P 20.) Given defendants’ consistent communications with plaintiff over the course of 18 years, no reasonable juror could find that plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that he could effectively communicate his request to revoke his consent at the Las Vegas address. Moreover, plaintiff cannot establish that defendants received the revocation letter. Defendants have no record of receiving the notice. (Id. PP 33-34.) The USPS confirmation notice confirms only that the letter was “delivered to the front desk, reception area, or mail room . . . in LAS VEGAS NV 89169.” (Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J., Ex. D at 1.) Not only does the confirmation notice not list the complete address, but also, the notice confirms receipt only by the front desk. Plaintiff does not dispute that USAA SB does not own or control the front desk, or that USAA SB does not sign for, and cannot control the receipt of, correspondence at the Las Vegas address. (Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ SUF PP 30, 32.) Indeed, defendants’ lack of control over the front desk is one of the reasons USAA SB never provides the Las Vegas address to its members. (Id. P 32.) There is accordingly insufficient evidence to support a finding that defendants received the letter. Moreover, based upon the court’s colloquy with counsel at oral argument, it clearly appears that the choice to send the letter to Las Vegas arose not from a genuine expectation that defendants would process Las Vegas correspondence, but rather from an attempt by counsel simply to create a record for litigation. The court notes that it was plaintiff’s counsel — not plaintiff — who chose to mail the letter to the Las Vegas address. With over 90 TCPA cases filed by plaintiff’s attorney in the Eastern District of California, he should have known how to effectively contact a lender. Indeed, counsel has filed suit for a violation of the TCPA against USAA SB before. See, e.g., Aycock v. USAA Savings Bank, No. 2:18-cv-00626-JAM-EFB (Filed March 22, 2018). In Aycock, plaintiff’s counsel similarly argued that plaintiff had revoked consent to be called via a letter drafted by plaintiff’s counsel. (Compl. PP 19-20 (Case No. 2:18-cv-00626-JAM-EFB, Docket No. 1).) By August 2018, the parties in Aycock had filed a Joint Status Report wherein defendant stated that “Plaintiff did not effectively revoke consent.” (Joint Status Report at 1 (Case No. 2:18-cv-00626-JAM-EFB, Docket No. 9).) By the time plaintiff’s counsel sent the letter at issue in this case, counsel was on notice that his method of revocation may present some issues and admitted as much during oral argument. It therefore strikes the court as disingenuous for counsel to argue that he sent the letter to Las Vegas to revoke his client’s consent, and not simply to set defendant up for this litigation. Considering that the choice of address appears to be a part of plaintiff counsel’s legal strategy and not a regular consumer’s contact with a lender, and that USAA SB has previously objected to counsel’s notice method, the court concludes that a reasonable person, after receiving hundreds of notices pointing to San Antonio, could not have expected to effectively revoke consent by contacting a corporate building in Las Vegas. Because plaintiff did not effectively revoke his consent, the court will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgement.