Usually, when the Court starts out this way, it doesn’t end well for the defendant: After Navient Solutions, LLC and its affiliate, Student Assistance Corporation ("SAC"), called Joel Lucoff's cell phone almost 2,000 times concerning his unpaid student loan, Lucoff sued Navient and SAC alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The… Read More
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… Read More
In Medley v. Dish Network, No. 18-13841, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14052, at *13-18 (11th Cir. May 1, 2020) , the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit followed the Second Circuit's Reyes decision, finding that contractual consent cannot be revoked under the TCPA. Finally, Medley appeals the district court's ruling in favor of DISH on her TCPA claim. The… Read More
In Franklin v. Navient Corp., Civil Action No. 17-1640-RGA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150902, at *14-19 (D. Del. Sep. 5, 2019), the District Court declined to follow the Second Circuit's Reyes decision. The Court turns next to the calls placed [*15] to Plaintiff prior to the November 2015 TCPA amendment. The evidence of record indicates that in each of Plaintiff's deferment requests,… Read More
In Lucoff v. Solutions, No. 18-CIV-60743-RAR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133577 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2019), Judge Ruiz granted summary judgment against a TCPA Plaintiff. Because the Arthur Settlement places contractual restrictions on revocation, Plaintiff's reliance on Osorio is erroneous. In Osorio, the court determined that consumers were "free to orally revoke any consent previously given" only "in the absence… Read More
In Lucoff v. Navient Sols., LLC, No. 18-60743-CIV, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89879 (S.D. Fla. May 28, 2019), Judge McAlily found that a TCPA Plaintiff could not revoke contractually bargained for consent. The Eleventh Circuit has held that a consumer is "free to orally revoke any consent previously given" under the TCPA "in the absence of any [*11] contractual restriction to… Read More
In Singer v. Las Vegas Ath. Clubs, No. 2:17-cv-01115-GMN-VCF, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48838 (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2019), Judge Singer found the Second Circuit’s Reyes decision incompatible with Ninth Circuit precedent. Preliminarily, the Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Van Patten. To the extent Reyes may serve as persuasive authority, the Court finds it cannot be… Read More
In Epps v. Earth Fare, Inc., No. 17-55413, 2018 WL 5314055 (9th Cir. October 26, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in an unpublished decision that a TCPA Plaintiff did not properly revoke consent to be called. Epps alleged that although she revoked her previous consent to receive text messages from Earth Fare, Earth Fare continued… Read More
In Self-Forbes v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, Case No. 16-15804, 2018 WL 5414613 (9th Cir. October 29, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an unpublished decision reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that the Plaintiff testified that she orally revoked consent to be called. We have… Read More
In Sharp v. Ally Financial, Inc., 2018 WL 4300018, at *18 (W.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Wolford found that a TCPA claim survived the Plaintiff's death. Accordingly, the Court declines to follow the rationale and the conclusion set forth in Hannabury to the extent discussed above, and holds that a private claim brought pursuant to § 227(b)(3) and § 227(c)(5) of the… Read More
In Rodriguez v. Premier Bankcard, LLC, Case No. 3:16CV2541, 2018 WL 4184742 (N.D. Ohio. August 31, 2018), Judge Carr framed 3 questions on summary judgment. First, Premier claims that because Hodge is the subscriber to the 70 number–that is, the consumer assigned to the number, and the individual billed for the call–he “was entitled to grant prior express consent for… Read More
In Few v. Receivables Performance Management, 2018 WL 3772863, at *2–3 (N.D.Ala., 2018), Judge Owen Bowdre granted summary judgment to a debt collector based on Reyes. In this case, Ms. Few contends that, although she may have initially provided DISH— and, by extension, Receivables, which acted as DISH’s agent for the purpose of debt collection—with consent to call the 0268… Read More
In Harris v. Navient Solutions, LLC (f/k/a Sallie Mae), 2018 WL 3748155, at *2–3 (D.Conn. 2018), Judge Chatigny granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant under Reyes. The Second Circuit has held that “the TCPA does not permit a party who agrees to be contacted as part of a bargained-for exchange to unilaterally revoke that consent.” See Reyes v. Lincoln… Read More
In McMillion v. Rash Curtis & Associates, Case No. 16-cv-03396-YGR, 2018 WL 3023449 (N.D. Cal. Jun3 18, 2018), Judge Gonzales-Rogers declined to revisit her ruling on summary judgment (previously reported on here https://www.severson.com/consumer-finance/district-court-cal-says-defendant-used-atdss-class-period-addresses-whether-calls-many-fdcpa-rosenthal-act-says-medical-debt-consumer-credit-transaction-becau/ or to stay the case pending the outcome of the 9th Circuit’s Marks ruling. First, the District Court declined to reconsider her ruling on summary judgment. Rash Curtis argues that because… Read More
In Walintukan v. SBE Entertainment Group., LLC., 2018 WL 2357763, at *3 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Tigar denied a TCPA defendant's summary judgment motion. Defendants argue that “the text messages involved in this case fall squarely within [the] scope of consent test articulated by the Court of Appeals in Van Patten — both from a temporal and a subject matter standpoint.”… Read More
In Jara v. GC Services Ltd., Partnership, et. al. 2018 WL 2276635 (C.D.Cal.), 3 (C.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Wright found a triable issue of fact as to whether a debtor’s revocation of TCPA consent on one account was sufficient to revoke consent on all accounts held by the debt collector. Mrs. Jara was the sole authorized user on her JC Penny,… Read More
In Weed v. SunTrust Bank, 2018 WL 2100590 (N.D.Ga.), 3 (N.D.Ga., 2018), Judge Duffy declined to rule on a caller’s Reyes defense to an oral revocation claim under the TCPA because the defense is an affirmative defense that the Court declined to rule on at the pleadings stage. SunTrust argues that Weed consented in the Sale Contract to the calls… Read More
In Barton v. Credit One Financial, 2018 WL 2012876, at *3–4 (N.D.Ohio, 2018), Judge Nugent granted summary judgment against a TCPA plaintiff who claimed that he orally revoked consent to be called. Mr. Barton also argues that he “revoked any consent he may have given” to Credit One. (ECF #47, p. 1). The facts illustrate that while Mr. Barton may… Read More
Click to review the decision: 15-1211-1722606 Decision Read More
In Zondlo v. Allied Interstate, LLC., 2018 WL 827590, at *6 (M.D.Pa., 2018), Judge Munley estopped a debt collector from re-litigating whether the calling system it used was an ATDS. Allied does not dispute that it was fully represented during Morse, and, as previously mentioned, has even agreed to use the deposition testimony from Morse in the instant case, as… Read More
