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 Hufnus v. Donotpay, Inc., No. 20-cv-08701-VC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118325, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2021), Judge Chhabria dismissed a TCPA claim on the basis that defendant did not call using an ATDS. DoNotPay's motion to dismiss is granted. To state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Hufnus must allege that DoNotPay sent messages using… Read More
In Timms v. Usaa Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 3:18-cv-01495-SAL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108083, at *8 (D.S.C. June 9, 2021), Judge Lydon ruled against a TCPA plaintiff on whether an aspect dialer was an ATDS after Duguid. Defendant's Motion submits that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the TCPA claim because it did not use an ATDS… Read More
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
