In Loretta Williams v. DDR Media, LLC, et al., No. 22-CV-03789-SI, 2023 WL 5352896, at *3–5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2023), United States District Court Judge Susan Illston held, on a motion to dismiss, that Jornaya's recording of Plaintiff's website activity for the operator's later use did not violate CIPA. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that Jornaya violated the second prong of… Read More
In Brown v. Google LLC, No. 4:20-CV-3664-YGR, 2023 WL 5029899, (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2023), United States District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers details what constitutes standing to defeat a motion for summary judgment on breach of contract and various privacy violation claims: “To have Article III standing to sue in federal court, plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that… Read More
In Rojas v. HSBC Card Servs. Inc., No. D077931, 2023 WL 4635056, at *1–2 (Cal. Ct. App. July 20, 2023), the Court of Appeal waded into an employer's recording of all calls of its employees whose job it is to communicate with the employers' customers. Rojas received hundreds of personal calls from her daughter Alejandra, an employee at an HSBC… Read More
United States District Court Judge Cynthia Bashant, of the Central District of California, ruled on several privacy claims on a motion to dismiss. Addressing injury in fact: "Plaintiff alleges Defendant collected his personal information in violation of the California Constitution and various California statutes. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) Among the collected data are his “geolocation, ... communications related to his… Read More
In Williams v. DDR Media, LLC, No. 22-cv-03789-SI, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33319, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2023), Judge Illston denied a Petition to Compel Arbitration in a CIPA class action. The CIPA class action was based on the following facts. On June 27, 2022, Loretta Williams filed a class action complaint against defendants DDR Media LLC and… Read More
On February 3, 2023, Judge Sykes of the Central District of California denied Goodyear's motion to transfer venue and its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's CIPA claim. Byars v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., No. 522CV01358SSSKKX, 2023 WL 1788553 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023). On the motion to transfer venue, the Court held: Where the internet contract falls into the browsewrap… Read More
In Mollaei v. Otonomo, Inc., Judge Thompson found that a vehicle's TCU did not constitute an "Electronic Tracking Device" because it was not "attached' to the vehicle and tracked the location only of the vehicle, and not the 'person', within the meaning of Penal Code 637.7. Penal Code 637.7 provides that (a) No person or entity in this state shall… Read More
In Javier v. Assurance IQ, LLC, No. 21-16351, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 14951, at *3 (9th Cir. May 31, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that "[t]hough written in terms of wiretapping, Section 631(a) applies to Internet communications." The facts and procedure below were as follows: Assurance is an insurance platform that owns and operates Nationalfamily.com. On this… Read More
In Smith v. Loanme, Inc., No. S260391, 2021 Cal. LEXIS 2248, at *2-3 (Apr. 1, 2021), the California Supreme Court found that Penal Code 632.7 requires two-party consent. The summary is below: Under Penal Code section 632.7, subdivision (a) (hereinafter section 632.7(a)), it is a crime when a person “without the consent of all parties to a communication, intercepts or… Read More
In Ewing v. Freedom Forever Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 20-cv-880-JLS (AHG), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53561 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021), Judge Sammartino dismissed part of a TCPA claim, but let the balance proceed. Judge Sammartino held that some of the calls were barred by the statute of limitations, but still remained relevant. Defendants argue that "most of Plaintiff's… Read More
On April 1, 2020, the California Supreme Court granted review in Smith v. LoanMe. Recently, Judge Hayes in Brinkley v. Monterey Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 16-cv-1103-WQH-WVG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70025 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020) stayed reconsideration of his ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs, in light of the Supreme Court granting review in Smith. Judge Hayes explained that Monterey sought… Read More
In Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., No. E069752, 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 1282, at *2-4 (Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2019), the California Court of Appeal addressed the scope of a cause of action under Penal Code 632.7. The facts were as follows: LoanMe is in the business of providing personal and small business loans. Smith's wife is the borrower on a… Read More
In Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Mingione, No. G055914, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3759 (May 31, 2019), the Court of Appeal held in an unpublished case that Penal Code 632/637.2 claims were no excluded criminal acts and that the penalties available under those sections were covered damages. We agree with Mingione that public policy and the rules of insurance policy… Read More
In Fishman v. Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., 2018 WL 1242076, at *2–3 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Alsup allowed a call-recording class action to proceed. Tiger argues that plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the sales calls — namely that (1) the parties discussed plaintiffs’ PG&E account information, (2) the calls were not made in a public setting, and (3) many other telemarketers disclose that… Read More
In Ronquillo-Griffin v. Transition Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., 2018 WL 325051, at *3–5 (S.D.Cal., 2018), the District Court denied production of the actual class's call recordings in a call recording class action because the content was private. Plaintiffs assert that the requested audio recordings “are highly relevant to several requirements for a class certification motion,” including numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, predominance, and manageability.… Read More
In Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., 2015 WL 7302268 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2015), the California Court of Appeal found a TCPA/Call Recording case to be within the scope of an enforceable arbitration clause:= We conclude that Brinkley's claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that the arbitration agreement is enforceable, with the exception of one provision… Read More
In Kight v. CashCall, Inc. 2014 WL 5573457 (2014), on remand from a prior appeal in the same case, the defendant successfully moved to decertify the plaintiff class that alleged eavesdropping on telephone calls by CashCall's supervisors in violation of Penal Code 632. The opinion on the earlier appeal established that an objective test is applied to determine whether a call… Read More
In Olney v. Job.com, 2014 WL 4629062 (E.D.Cal. 2014), the Plaintiff filed a TCPA class action based on calls he received after signing up for Defendant's resume service. The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Discovery Stipulation allowing the parties to designate certain information as "Confidential". The Defendant produced, and marked confidential, three recordings of telephone conversations with the Plaintiff. As a… Read More
In Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2014 WL 667381 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2014), the Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed the trial court’s denial of class certification in a call-recording case filed under Penal Code § 632. The facts were as follows: A customer placing an inbound call to First American is… Read More
In Gillette v. First Premier Bank, 2013 WL 3205827 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Plaintiff's counsel employed a strategy purportedly designed to secure a waiver of arbitration clause. Plaintiff filed a small-value Rosenthal Act claim and settled it with the defendant. However, Plaintiff also had filed a federal class action under Penal Code 632 -- California's call recording statute. Defendant moved to compel arbitration of… Read More
