Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.18: Called Party

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Bank v. Icot Holdings, No. 18-CV-02554 (AMD)(PK), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 676, at *15-19 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2023), Judge Kuo denied class certification in a TCPA class based on ascertainability grounds.  The Plaintiff's claim sounded as a "customary user" of a cell phone for which his mother was the subscriber and had been a member of a previous class… Read More

In Hylton v. Titlemax of Va., Inc., No. 4:21-cv-163, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202470, at *8 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2022), Judge Baker denied a TCPA defendant's summary judgment in a re-assigned number case. Titlemax argues that summary judgment is warranted because Jennings consented to Titlemax calling the 7270 Number concerning his account. (Doc. 65-1, pp. 7-9.) This argument fails.… Read More

In Balschmiter v. TD Auto Finance LLC, 2014 WL 6611008 (E.D.Wis. 2014), Judge Stadtmueller denied class certification of a TCPA class defined essentially as either references or cell-phone transferees or both: “All persons within the United States who, on or after October 21, 2009, received a non-emergency telephone call from or on behalf of TDAF to a cellular telephone through… Read More

In Zyburo v. NCSPlus, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 4536932 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), Judge Rakoff granted class certification in a TCPA class action. This is a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C § 227 et seq., which prohibits certain kinds of telephone solicitations without the recipient's consent. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant repeatedly… Read More

In Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 3907048 (N.D.Ill. 2014), Judge Kennelly held that a TCPA class was ascertainable, rejected the Defendant’s argument that, under Soppet, only the subscriber had standing and it could not be determined whether the subscriber answered the cellular telephone. Defendants appear to be making a two-part argument: first, the people… Read More

In Olney v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,  2014 WL 294498 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Curiel rejected a TCPA defendant's arguments against the Soppett "called party" analysis. Plaintiff, a resident of California, sues on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Defendant is an Ohio corporation that provides insurance policies with its principal place of business in Ohio.  Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in July 2013,… 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 Onley v., Inc., 2013 WL 5476813 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge O’Neill found TCPA standing notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff was not the subscriber of the cell phone. Plaintiff Peter Olney sued Defendant Job.Com, complaining that used an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) to call Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an effort to sell or solicit its services without… Read More

In Iniguez v. The CBE Group, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 4780785 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Mendez addressed the propriety of a class-action lawsuit brought against a debt collection agency under TCPA by an “unintended recipient” of collection calls.  The lawsuit was based on Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant placed numerous calls to her cell phone seeking to collect a debt owed… Read More