District Court (Ind.) Refuses Stay in TCPA Case Because “Big Unit” Says He Has Actual Damages — Even if He Has No Evidence of It

Okay, so it’s probably not the same guy.  In Randy Johnson v. Navient Solutions, Inc. 2015 WL 8784150, at *1-2 (S.D.Ind., 2015), Judge McKinney refused a Spokeo stay because the Plaintiff said that he had actual damages, even if he had no evidence to prove it.

Johnson also claims that he is asserting a claim for actual damages/actual injury and that his failure to produce documentary evidence of those damages to date cannot preclude him from continuing to pursue that claim. Id. at 5-8. Further, Johnson argues that the wrongful, active intrusion into Johnson’s life is actionable because preservation of privacy is one of the primary purposes of the TCPA. . . .Based on the allegations in the Complaint and the TCPA’s protection of Johnson’s privacy rights, the Court concludes that Johnson has stated a claim for actual harm, upon which he may rely to provide standing. Accord Schumacher v. Credit Protection Ass’n, Cause No. 4:13-cv-00164-SEB-DML, 2015 WL 5786139, at *5 (S.D. In. Sept. 30, 2015); Martin v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, LLC, Cause No. 11 C 5886, 2012 WL 3292838, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 10, 2012) (citing TCPA, 105 Stat. 2394, note following 47 U.S.C. § 227 (Congressional statement of findings)); Anderson v. AFNI, Inc., No. CIV.A. 10-4064, 2011 WL 1808779, at *6 (E.D. Pa. May 11, 2011). See also Dkt. No. 45 at 10-11 (discussing Senator Hollings’, FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel’s, and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s remarks regarding the purpose of the TCPA to protect consumer’s right to privacy). Johnson has alleged repeated automated calls to his cell phone directed to collection of a debt owed by a third-party. Compl. ¶¶ 10-13. His attempts to stop the calls by explaining that he was not the person Navient was looking for went unheeded. Id. Any harassment caused by these calls could be actionable. Further, the Court is not persuaded by Navient’s argument that Johnson has abandoned his claim for actual damages. Although he would need proof of monetary and/or compensatory damages to recover them at trial, discovery is not over and it is evident that he could prove some harm to his privacy.  For these reasons, Navient’s claim that Johnson’s standing is predicated only on an injury in law fails. As a result, delay will unduly prejudice Johnson because the Robins decision will not affect his entitlement to relief for the harm to his privacy rights he claims were caused by Navient’s alleged violation of the TCPA.