In Golan v. FreeEats.com, Inc., No. 17-3156, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21015 (8th Cir. July 16, 2019), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reduced an aggregate TCPA verdict on due process grounds. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Leininger and the other defendants. The district court entered judgment against ccAdvertising based on its prior grant… Read More
In Lucas v. Total Security Vision, Inc., 2018 WL 4519896 (S.D.Ohio), 4 (S.D.Ohio, 2018), Judge Bowman agreed that “excessive fines” was not an appropriate affirmative defense in a TCPA case. Plaintiff seeks to strike Defendants’ constitutional arguments that TCPA damages are an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 32, ¶32). This Court previously agreed in another case filed by Plaintiff. See… Read More
In Cunningham v. Tollfreezone.com, No. 16-cv-761-jdp2017, WL 3055506 (D.Wis. July 18, 2017), Judge Peterson said how to calculate TCPA damages where each call violates multiple statutory provisions of the TCPA. Default establishes defendants' liability for the TCPA violations alleged in Cunningham's complaint, so the analysis must next turn to damages. The TCPA allows for $500 in damages for each violation of… Read More
In Golan v. Veritas Entertainment, LLC, 2017 WL 2861671 (E.D. Mo. 2017), Judge Webber held that there could be due process limitations on the amount of damages recoverable in a TCPA class action. In their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Damages [ECF No. 239], Plaintiffs ask the Court to determine the amount of damages to be… 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
In Newman v. GM Financial, Judge Sabraw issued an Order Denying Preliminary Approval rejecting a proposed TCPA class settlement in part on the basis that disparately situated classmembers with different damages claims would obtain the same settlement sums under the class settlement and, due to the claims-made procedure, it was unclear what that sum would be anyway. A class action settlement may be… Read More
In A Fast Sign Co., Inc. v. American Home Services, Inc., --- S.E.2d ----, 2012 WL 5381254 (Ga. 2012), the Georgia Supreme Court found that the TCPA liability derives from the number of attempts (fax) not the number of received faxes. At the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court had found that AHS violated the TCPA because it… Read More
We had hoped the issue would be addressed by the Supreme Court (as to RESPA) in Edwards v. First American Corp. 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), but SCOTUS dismissed cert. as improvidently granted. So, the district court in Smith v. Microsoft Corp. 2012 WL 2975712 (S.D.Cal. 2012) addressed the issue whether a TCPA Plaintiff who otherwise had suffered no… Read More
In Charvat v. NMP, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 3805618 (6th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals held that a TCPA plaintiff can not recover multiple damages on a per call basis for the same harm under the TCPA, but can recover multiple damages on a per call basis when the subsections sued on target different harms. Charvat… Read More
In First Nat. Collection Bureau, Inc. v. Walker, --- S.W.3d ----, 2011 WL 2716778 (Tex. App. 2011), the Texas Court of Appeal affirmed a $147,000 jury verdict against a debt collector based on willful violations of the TCPA. The facts were as follows: Walker filed this lawsuit on June 30, 2008. In her live pleading, Walker contended FNCB made calls… Read More
