In Davis v. Rockloans Marketplace, LLC dba Rocket Loans, No. 23CV0134 DMS (BLM), 2023 WL 6378067, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2023), Judge Sabraw hoisted a 'revocation' letter on its own petard on the basis that there would have been no basis to revoke if consent already had not been given. Specifically, Plaintiff does not deny that she gave… 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 Moskowitz v. Am. Sav. Bank, F.S.B., No. 20-15024, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16016, at *8 (9th Cir. June 10, 2022) Moskowitz argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment for ASB because ASB did not have the consent required under the TCPA to send the responsive text messages to Moskowitz. We have already determined that the type of… Read More
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 Suriano v. French Riveria Health Spa, Inc., Civ. No. 18-9141, 2018 WL 6702749 (E.D. La. December 20, 2018), Judge Lemmon found that text messages were information only and not advertisements. Therefore, the sender did not violate the TCPA. At the outset, messages one, two, and five are plainly informational in nature. The first (sent the day after plaintiff joined)… 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 Karpilovsky v. All Web Leads, Inc., Case No. 17-C-1307, 2018 WL 3108884 (N.D. Ill. 2018), Judge Leinenweber certified a TCPA class. The Plaintiffs, however, retained an expert, Young, who testified that the AWL website was not materially changed during the class period and, for that reason, all members of the proposed class experienced the same information-submission and click-through procedure when… Read More
In Sawyer v. KRS Biotechnology, 2018 WL 2425780 (S.D. Ohio 2018), Magistrate Judge Bowman denied class certification in a junk-fax TCPA class action. Although the defendant’s V.P. Of sales was unfamiliar with the TCPA before the litigation and the defendant had no formal records documenting individualized consent to send the faxes, Judge Bowman found that individual questions of consent predominated.… 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 Zucker v. HSBC Bank, USA, et. al., 2018 WL 2048880, at *8–9 (E.D.N.Y., 2018), Judge Hurley hoisted Reyes on its own petard, finding that consent to call given in a credit application was not, at the pleadings stage, broad enough consent for the inevitable debt collection calls to be made by an ATDS. Plaintiff has alleged that PHH (1) called… Read More
In Fober v. Management and Technology Consultants, LLC, 2018 WL 1526365, at *3 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a patient consented to receive autodialed calls. Plaintiff argues, though, that her consent extended only to calls concerning the quality of Health Net's services and not to calls concerning the quality of Dr. Schwartz'… Read More
In Barnes v. Conn Appliances, Inc., 2018 WL 907418, at *3 (S.D.Miss., 2018), Judge Wingate agreed with a TCPA defendant's argument that a non-party to a contract can assent to its terms, including a TCPA-consent clause, but a jury would have to decide whether she did. This court now turns to an examination of the law. The TCPA occupies a… Read More
In Etter v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2017 WL 6594069, at *4–5 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Alsup denied certification of one TCPA blast-fax case due to lack of class representative's standing, but granted certification of a second class. As to the standing issue, Judge Alsup found that: Etter cites various decisions for the proposition that “awareness” of an offending transmission is unnecessary to establish… Read More
In San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., 2017 WL 4536422, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Davila found that a confirming text may be, on the facts pleaded, an advertisement that triggers the TCPA. Defendants contend that the text is not advertising or telemarketing because it does not encourage Plaintiff to purchase property, goods or services. Plaintiff argues that the… Read More
In Farrish v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 2017 WL 4418416, at *2–3 (D.Md., 2017), Judge Chasanow dismissed a TCPA claim based on debt collection calls placed by a credit munition because such calls are exempt from the TCPA. The TCPA prohibits certain problematic telephone solicitation practices. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b). In enacting the TCPA, Congress allowed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)… Read More
In Jackson v. Pmab, LLC, 2017 WL 4316096, at *3–4 (D.N.J., 2017), Judge Rodriquez granted partial summary judgment to a TCPA defendant, but discussed the extent to which Osorio agency survived the FCC 2015 Order. According to the FCC, the manner in which a business obtains a telephone number informs the consideration of whether a number was “knowingly released” and, therefore, permissible… Read More
In Franklin v. DePaul University, No. 16 C 8612, 2017 WL 3219253 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2017), Judge Lee allowed a TCPA text message claim to proceed past the pleading stage. DePaul nevertheless asks the Court to ignore Franklin's allegation that he never gave prior express consent, arguing that this allegation is a legal conclusion that “cannot withstand a motion to dismiss.”… Read More
In Wick v. Twilio, Inc., 2017 WL 2964855, at *4 (W.D.Wash., 2017), Judge Laznik found that Twilio might have used an ATDS, if it was Twilio who placed the call. Contrary to Twilio's argument, the FCC has not created a blanket rule immunizing from TCPA liability cloud-based service providers that transmit third-party content. Rather, the totality of the facts and… 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 Daubert v. NRA Group., LLC, 2017 WL 2836808, at *4–5 (C.A.3 (Pa.), 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a medical debt servicer did not meet its burden of demonstrating that it or its assignor received consent. The Sixth Circuit found prior express consent where the plaintiffs gave their cell numbers to a hospital-intermediary in… Read More
