District Court (Cal.) Finds Art. III Standing (Again) for TCPA Plaintiffs Who Received a lot of Calls

In Juarez v. Citibank, N.A., 2016 WL 4547914 (N.D. Cal. 2016), Judge Orrick confirmed (again) his opinion that the TCPA afford Article III standing to TCPA plaintiffs who received multiple telephone calls.

Several courts have addressed whether a plaintiff’s allegations that she received annoying and unwanted phone calls in violation of the TCPA is sufficient to establish Article III standing since Spokeo was decided. See, e.g., Booth v. Appstack, Inc., No. c-13-1533, 2016 WL 3030256, *3 (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2016); Rogers v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 15-cv-4016, 2016 WL 3162592, *2 (N.D. Ga. Jun. 03, 2016); Romero v. Dep’t Stores Nat’l Bank, No. 15-cv-193, 2016 WL 4184099, (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016). These courts have not reached a consensus on whether such calls constitute a “concrete injury” necessary to establish Article III standing. . .I am persuaded by Booth and Rogers. Although I agree with Citibank that Juarez cannot establish standing based on a bare violation of the TCPA, Juarez has pleaded sufficient facts to show that the unwanted calls he received were an annoyance that caused him to waste time. This does not mean any violation of the TCPA will necessarily give rise to Article III standing–for example calls made to a neglected phone that go unnoticed or calls that are dropped before they connect may violate the TCPA but not cause any concrete injury. But here, Juarez has alleged that he received at least 42 unwanted and unsolicited phone calls from Citibank, getting multiple calls a day. Compl. ¶ 1. He has further alleged that he “repeatedly requested that Defendant stop calling, informing Defendant that he was not the individual they were attempting to contact” but that Citibank continued calling. Id. ¶ 16. Based on these allegations, it appears that Juarez wasted his own time and energy dealing with the unwanted phone calls. Even a single phone call can cause lost time, annoyance, and frustration. This is especially plausible where the recipient receives repeated, regular phone calls from the same number and asks the caller to stop, but due to the call pattern, nevertheless worries about and anticipates additional calls. Juarez’s allegation that he received repeated unwanted calls that caused him aggravation, nuisance, and an invasion of privacy, is sufficient to allege a “concrete” and “particularized” injury that establishes standing under Spokeo.