In Central Alarm Signal, Inc. v. Business Financial Services, Inc. 2016 WL 3595627, at *2 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Whalen allowed a TCPA class action plaintiff to conduct discovery of faxes beyond the scope of what was attached to the complaint or defined by the class. That Plaintiff attached only a single fax to the FAC does not circumscribe the class allegations… Read More
In Mora v. Zeta Interactive Corp., 2016 WL 3477222, at *2-3 (E.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Drozd denied a motion to dismiss filed by a TCPA blast-fax's CEO who was named in a TCPA case against his company. In the instant case, defendants argue that the allegations specifically leveled against defendant Steinberg lack details of his direct participation in any wrongdoing and… Read More
In Dr. Robert L. Meinders D.C., Ltd v. Emery Wilson Corporation, 2016 WL 3402621, at *4-5 (S.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Yandle certified a TCPA blast fax class action. Sterling is a corporation that provides management training and consulting services to entrepreneur and business clients (Doc. 69-8, p. 18). To promote its business, Sterling sends faxes to existing and potential customers promoting… Read More
In Siding and Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc., 2016 WL 2620507, at *4-5 (C.A.6 (Ohio),2016), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the FCC's 2006 amended definition of "sender" did not apply retroactively to faxes sent in 2005. More importantly, however, the Court of Appeals found that common law agency principles did not govern the concept… Read More
In Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medtox Scientific, Inc., 2016 WL 1743037, at *3-4 (8th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a TCPA blast-fax class action could proceed as a class act, reversing the district court's denial of class certification on ascertainability grounds. Sandusky's class definition includes: “All persons who (1) on or after four… Read More
In Bridgeview Health Care Center, Ltd. v. Clark, 2016 WL 1085233, at *2-3 (7th Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's rejection of agency liability under the TCPA, where the authority to the agent was limited. In determining what theory should govern Clark's liability, the trial court correctly rejected strict liability by recognizing that… Read More
In Payton v. Kale Realty, LLC, 2016 WL 703869 (N.D. Ill. 2016), Judge Lefkow held that a web service was exempt from the TCPA. Regardless of plaintiffs' self-defeating argument, the undisputed facts establish that VoiceShot provides telecommunication services rather than information services. While plaintiff is correct that VoiceShot's services include data storage to allow users to store contact lists and past… Read More
In St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., 2015 WL 9451046, at *2 (E.D.Mo., 2015), Judge White refused to strike a TCPA blast-fax class action definition as being overlord, but then limited the Plaintiff's discovery solely to the faxes sent -- not to all faxes possibly sent during the 4-year SofL period. Plaintiff served a subpoena on Windstream Communications, LLC (“Windstream”)… Read More
In Grind Lap Services, Inc. v. UBM, LLC, 2015 WL 6955484, at *3 (N.D.Ill., 2015), Judge Gettlemen granted summary judgment to a TCPA Blast-Fax defendant, holding that the fax was not an advertisement. According to an order issued by the Commission, “messages whose purpose is to facilitate, complete, or confirm a commercial transaction that the recipient has previously agreed to enter… Read More
In Urban Elevator Service, Inc. v. Stryker Lubricant Distributors, Inc., 2015 WL 6736676, at *1-2 (N.D.Ill., 2015), Judge Shah found granted a Motion to Dismiss a TCPA blast-fax class action against one defendant who claimed that it was not responsible for the sending of the fax at issue. In response, plaintiff argues that—by pleading “Defendants” sent the fax—it did allege Sinopec USA… Read More
In Connector Castings, Inc. v. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., 2015 WL 6431704, at *2-3 (E.D.Mo., 2015), Judge Limbaugh allowed a TCPA class action past the pleadings stage. He rejected the Defendant's argument that a Rule 68 offer mooted the class. Plaintiff contends that the offer of judgment was invalid insomuch as plaintiff had on file a motion to… Read More
In Yaakov v. Varitronics, LLC, 2015 WL 5092501, at *1 (D.Minn.,2015), Judge Montgomery stayed a TCPA-fax class action pending the outcome of the SCOTUS' decision in Campbell-Ewald. The facts were as follows. This putative class action stems from eight unsolicited fax advertisements Bais Yaakov received between November 2013 and February 2014. See Compl. [Docket No. 1] ¶ 10; Ex. A (the “Fax… Read More
In Imhoff Investment, L.L.C. v. Alfoccino, Inc., 2015 WL 4079438,(6th Cir. 2015), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found Article III standing for a TCPA class plaintiff, and imposed direct, rather than vicarious, liability on a company on whose behalf an unsolicited fax was sent. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals summarized its holding as follows: Plaintiff Avio, Inc. alleges… Read More
