In Bauman v. Saxe, No. 2:14-cv-01125-RFB-PAL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23351 (D. Nev. Feb. 13, 2019), Judge Boulware found that a TCPA plaintiff stated a claim against Twilio, who allegedly transmitted telemarking text messages in violation of the TCPA. The facts alleged were as follows: The Saxe Defendants are: David Saxe; David Saxe Productions, Inc.; David Saxe Productions, LLC; Saxe Management,… Read More
In Payton v. Kale Realty, LLC, 2016 WL 703869 (N.D. Ill. 2016), Judge Lefkow held that a web service was exempt from the TCPA. Regardless of plaintiffs' self-defeating argument, the undisputed facts establish that VoiceShot provides telecommunication services rather than information services. While plaintiff is correct that VoiceShot's services include data storage to allow users to store contact lists and past… Read More
In Melito v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 2015 WL 7736547, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y., 2015), Judge Caproni dismissed a TCPA class action against Experian for unsolicited texts sent by American Eagle in connection with a marketing campaign. First, the Court found no direct liability under the TCPA. The plain language of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) imposes liability upon persons that “make” a telephone call… Read More
The FCC's Omnibus Ruling, along with the comments of Commissioners Wheeler, Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O'Rielly can be found here. We will be evaluating the Ruling, and Commissioners' comments. For questions regarding the Ruling and its impacts, please contact the group leaders of Severson & Werson's TCPA team, Eric Troutman (ejt@severson.com) or Scott Hyman (sjh@severson.com). Read More
In Clark v. Avatar Technologies Phl, Inc., 2014 WL 309079 (S.D.Tex. 2014), Judge Atlas granted a Motion to Dismiss under the TCPA filed against a VoIP service provider. Plaintiff alleges that, in July 2013, Avatar made a call to his cellular telephone using an “artificial or prerecorded voice.” See id., ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that Avatar made the call using… Read More
In Daniels v. Comunity Lending, Inc., 2014 WL 51275 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Hayes found Plaintiff’s FDCPA and TCPA claims not adequately pleaded. The FDCPA applies to debt collectors, but not to creditors. See Mansour v. Cal–Western Reconveyance Corp., 618 F.Supp.2d 1178, 1182 (D.Ariz.2009). Under the FDCPA, a “debt collector” is “any person who uses any instrumentality of inter-state commerce or… Read More
In Iniguez v. CBE Group, Inc., 2013 WL 6331207 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Mendez denied a Motion for Reconsideration that sought to argue his previous conclusion that the TCPA does, in fact, apply to auto-dialed debt collection calls to cellular telephones. The three cases cited and briefly discussed by CBE in this motion for reconsideration fail to show how manifest injustice… Read More
In Ashley v. General Elec. Capital Corp., 2013 WL 6133562 (M.D.Fla. 2013), Judge Steele allowed a TCPA case to go forward on a wrongfully called party theory. In early June 2012, plaintiff received a telephone call to her cellular phone from defendant. (Id., ¶ 14.) Defendant left a prerecorded voice mail for a person by the name of “Rosa,” seeking… Read More
In Mashiri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2013 WL 5797584 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Lorenz found a TCPA claim adequately pleaded. First, Judge Lorenz rejected the Defendant’s argument that the TCPA does not apply to debt collectors placing calls to wireless telephone numbers by use of an autodialer: The TCPA contains separate provisions for calls made to residential telephone lines and… Read More
In Morgan v. Branson Vacation & Travel, LLC, 2013 WL 5532228 (W.D.Okla. 2013), Judge Cauthron granted partial summary judgment on a TCPA claim, finding that ‘good faith’ was no defense to the claim. It is undisputed that Branson placed at least 37 calls to the 6743 number and that those calls were made with an automatic dialing system subject to… Read More
