During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.
In Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (No. 19-511) (2021), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that The question before the Court is whether that definition encompasses equipment that can “store” and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.” It does not. To qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system,” a device… Read More
In In Stoutt v. Travis Credit Union, No. 2:20-cv-01280 WBS AC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57392 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2021), Judge Schubb certified the Creasy TCPA issue for review by the 9th Circuit. The facts were as follows: In this putative class action, plaintiff Shawntel Stoutt claims that defendant Travis Credit Union violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Telephone Consumer Protection… 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
In Akselrod v. Marketpro Homebuyers LLC, No. CCB-20-2966, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5253 (D. Md. Jan. 11, 2021), Judge Blake denied staying a TCPA case when the case did not turn of the definition of an ATDS. In order to succeed on its autodialing claim, Akselrod must prove that the communications he received were made using an automated telephone dialing… Read More
In Trujillo v. Free Energy Sav. Co., LLC, No. 5:19-cv-02072-MCS-SP, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239730 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2020), Judge Scarsi rejected the argument that Barr created a finite period of constitutional infirmity for the TCPA. Defendant does not present any authority deeming a statute ineffective, in whole or in part, where the statute suffered a finite period of constitutional infirmity… Read More
In Frantz v. Factor, No. 20-cv-1012-MMA (KSC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213941 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020), Judge Anello stayed a TCPA case pending the outcome of the Duguid decision by the SCOTUS. The Court described the split of authority succinctly. Under the TCPA, it is "unlawful for any person within the United States . . . (A) to make… Read More
In Aleisa v. Square, Inc., No. 20-cv-00806-EMC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188024 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020), Judge Chen stayed an action pending SCOTUS’ review of what constitutes an ATDS. All three of the Landis factors weigh in favor of granting Square's motion to stay the proceedings pending the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in Duguid II. First, and most importantly,… Read More
In Camacho v. Hydroponics, Inc., No. EDCV 20-980 JGB (KKx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174379 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2020), Judge Bernal denied a stay in a TCPA case. The TCPA defines an ATDS as "equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to… Read More
In Komaiko v. Baker Techs., No. 19-cv-03795-DMR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143953 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2020), Magistrate Judge Ryu denied a stay in a TCPA case pending SCOTUS review of the Duguid case. At issue in Duguid is the definition of ATDS in the TCPA, and specifically whether that definition "encompasses any device that can 'store' and 'automatically dial' telephone… Read More
In Allan v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, No. 19-2043, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23935 (6th Cir. July 29, 2020), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit followed Mark’s interpretation of the TCPA as to what constitutes an auto dialer. Here, again, we agree with the Second and Ninth Circuits [*15] that the structure and context of the autodialer ban support… Read More
