Pleading

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Brickman v. Meta (9th Cir. No. 21-16785),  the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is poised to rule on efforts to evade the SCOTUS' ruling in Duguid.  According to the Respondent's Brief, the issue is framed as: This appeal involves an effort to evade the consequences of binding Supreme Court precedent that squarely forecloses Plaintiff’s claim. The Telephone Consumer Protection… Read More

In Demesa v. Treasure Island, LLC, No. 2:18-cv-02007-JAD-NJK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98511, at *8-9 (D. Nev. June 1, 2022), Judge Dorsey rejected a TCPA Plaintiff's attempted end-around Duguid, where the Plaintiff argued that a standard text message fell within section 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)'s prohibition against using "artificial or prerecorded voice" without consent. DeMesa's alternative theory of liability fares no better.… Read More

In Borden v. Efinancial, LLC, No. C19-1430JLR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153086, at *13-16 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2021), Judge Robart dismissed a TCPA case based on Duguid.   In this context, Mr. Borden's allegations are insufficient to establish that eFinancial's system is an ATDS. He alleges that eFinancial's system uses a sequential number generator to select which stored phone numbers to… Read More

In Hildre v. Heavy Hammer, No. 3:20-cv-00236-L-LL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35294 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2021), Judge Lorenz dismissed a TCPA claim. Here, Plaintiff received two calls from Defendants. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16). The first call occurred on June 15, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 15). The second call occurred on December [*4]  3, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 16). Plaintiff alleges there… Read More

In Tuck v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., No. 19-CV-1270-CAB-AHG, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179274, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2019), Judge Bencivengo dismissed a TCPA and FDCPA claim for failure of proper pleading. First, she dismissed the TCPA claim. To "make" a call under the TCPA the person must either (1) directly make the call, or (2) have an agency… Read More

In Bodie v. Lyft, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02558-L-NLS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172998, at *6-7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2019) , Judge Lorenz found "use" of an ATDS adequately pleaded. In addressing the second issue, the Ninth Circuit clarified that a total lack of human intervention was not required for a device to qualify as an ATDS. Marks, 904 F.3d at… Read More

In Whitehead v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:18-CV-470-FTM-99MRM, 2018 WL 5279155 (M.D. Fla. October 24, 2018), the District Court found that a TCPA Plaintiff pleaded enough regarding an ATDS after ACA International. Not surprisingly, since the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in ACA Int’l, courts have reached differing conclusions as to the decision’s impact on FCC Orders issued prior to… Read More

In Morgan v. U.S. XPRESS, Inc., CHRISTOPHER MORGAN,  2018 WL 3580775, at *2–3 (W.D.Va., 2018), Judge Moon found that a TCPA Plaintiff had to distinguish between cell phone lines and land-lines. To start, Plaintiff's characterization of the cell phone as a “residential, cellular telephone line” is not determinative of this question. These are not factual allegations, but legal terms drawn… Read More

In Lord v. Kisling, Nestico & Redick, LLC, 2018 WL 3391941, at *3 (N.D.Ohio, 2018), Judge Nugent found that a TCPA Plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts demonstrating that an ATDS was used under the standard set forth by the D.C. Circuit's decision in ACA International.  For the telephone system KNR allegedly uses to constitute a violation of the TCPA,… 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 Rhinehart v. Diversified Central, Inc., 2018 WL 372312, at *10 (N.D.Ala., 2018), Judge Hopkins dismissed a TCPA claim and found that an FDCPA claim failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Note that “[c]ausing a telephone to ring or engaging any person in telephone conversation repeatedly or continuously with intent to annoy, abuse, or harass any… Read More

In Abante Rooter & Plumbing v. Farmers Group, Inc.,  2018 WL 288055, at *6 (N.D.Cal., 2018), Judge Hamilton found that a TCPA Plaintiff had adequately pleaded use of an ATDS used by an alleged Farmers representative in a telemarketing campaign, but found that the Plaintiff had failed to plead enough facts to demonstrate that Farmers should be responsible for the alleged… Read More

In Lundstedt v. I.C. System, Inc., 2017 WL 4281057, at *2–3 (D.Conn., 2017), Judge Meyer allowed an FDCPA claim to proceed based on the call pattern alleged in the Complaint. [D]efendant argues that the alleged pattern of calls—29 calls over a period of 24 days—is legally insufficient to show an intent to annoy, abuse, or harass plaintiff as the statute requires.… 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 Klein v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 2017 WL 2672290, at *10 (W.D.Pa., 2017), Judge Conti granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant against a Plaintiff who received calls over VoiP and through Google. There is no dispute that the challenged calls were made to Klein's VoIP number. Collectcents and Commerce Energy, however, dispute that either of them can be held… Read More

In Flores v. Access Insurance Company, 2017 WL 986516, at *8 (C.D.Cal., 2017), Judge Snyder found that Plaintiff adequately pleaded use of an ATDS to send a text message and that the McCarran-Ferguson Act did not bar a TCPA Plaintiff's claim against the insurer.  Judge Snyder also said that dual purpose text messages can trigger the TCPA's written consent requirement.… Read More

1 2 3 6