In Horn v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., No. 19-12525, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16279, at *1-3 (11th Cir. June 1, 2021), the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for an insurance carrier regarding a dispute over coverage for a TCPA action. This appeal requires us to interpret an insurance agreement between iCan Benefit Group, LLC, a Florida company, and its… Read More
In LaGuardia v. Designer Brands, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-2311, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97396 (S.D. Ohio May 24, 2021), Magistrate Judge Morrison rejected the Creasy holding on the constitutionality of the TCPA after Barr. Since the AAPC decision was issued less than a year ago, district courts have split on the application of AAPC to TCPA claims arising between 2015-2020. Two courts have… Read More
In Cranor v. 5 Star Nutrition, L.L.C., No. 19-51173, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 15795 (5th Cir. May 26, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found Art. III standing arising from the sending of a single text message. On similar facts, the Eleventh Circuit concluded there is no common law analogue to the harm of receiving an unwanted… Read More
In Leyse v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n, No. 20-1666, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 14897, at *1-3 (3d Cir. May 19, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a TCPA Plaintiff had no standing. On March 11, 2005, DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., on behalf of Bank of America, called the residential telephone line that Leyse shared with… Read More
In Warren v. Credit Pros Int'l Corp., No. 3:20-cv-763-TJC-MCR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79150, at *20-28 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 26, 2021), Judge Richardson ordered a TCPA defendant to produce sweeping discovery in a TCPA class action. Now, as to the first category of documents, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to receive information regarding the hardware, software, and capabilities of… Read More
In Mey v. Medguard Alert, No. 5:19-CV-315, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80083, at *13-14 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 27, 2021), Judge Tates found that the SCOTUS' holding in Barr didn't render the TCPA unconstitutional for non-government backed debts. Those courts which have found the TCPA to be valid with regard to non-Government debt calls, even in light of Barr,include McCurley, supra; Less v. Quest… Read More
In Franklin v. Navient, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-1640-SB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74265, at *1-2 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2021), Judge Bibas allowed a TCPA claim to proceed. "[J]udicial decisionmaking" after the fact "necessarily involves some peril to individual expectations." Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 312 (1994). Na-vient may have to learn that the hard way. It robocalled Ricky… Read More
In Mesa Labs. v. Fed. Ins. Co., No. 20-1983, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11365, at *1 (7th Cir. Apr. 20, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found no insurance coverage for TCPA blast-fax claims. The Court of Appeals framed the question as follows: The question in this case is straightforward: When an insurance policy provides that the… 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 Massaro v. Beyond Meat, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00510-AJB-MSB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46980, at *15-20 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2021), Judge Battaglia allowed a TCPA claim to proceed against PETA because their texts endorsing Beyond Meat constituted advertisements. Here, PETA appears to argue there is a blanket exemption for non-profit organizations, (Doc. No. 30-1 at 19-22), while Plaintiff contends PETA's… 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 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
The procedural history in True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-cv-02219-HSG, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 242297 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2020) is a handful, but sets the stage for Judge Gilliam’s ruling. Defendants were ordered to identify "each type of act that Defendants believe demonstrates a recipient's express permission to receive faxes (e.g. completing a software registration), (2)… 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 Slaughter v. Reg'l Acceptance Corp., No. 2:20-cv-01888, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234729 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 14, 2020), Judge Marbley declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a collection counter-claim to a TCPA case. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Regional's counterclaim for breach of contract in view of the second and fourth considerations. With respect to the former,… Read More
In Grigorian v. Fca Us Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 19-15026, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38370 (11th Cir. Dec. 9, 2020), the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of a TCPA class action on standing grounds, declining to reach the issue of whether ringless voicemail technology is subject to the TCPA. FCA manufactures motor vehicles and sells those vehicles… Read More
After SCOTUS punted on whether Chevron deference need be given to the FCC’s Fax Rule, so too did the 4th Cir. in Carlton & Harris Chiropractic v. Pdr Network, No. 16-2185, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 38073 (4th Cir. Dec. 7, 2020). First, the Court of Appeals held that the Rule was interpretive and not legislative since the FCC had not… 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
