District Court (Fla.) Denies Summary Judgment to TCPA Defendant Because, Where Multiple Debts Existed, It Could Not Connect Specific Consent to the Specific Service on Which the Calls Were Made

In Lee v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, 2014 WL 6978760 (M.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Bucklew denied summary judgment to a TCPA defendant because, where multiple medical services were given to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s Motion did not connect each call made to each service for which consent was given.

Defendant argues that it called Plaintiff’s cell phone with Plaintiff’s prior express consent, as shown by his provision of his cell phone number to SMH. Defendant, however, has failed to connect: (1) the provision of Plaintiff’s cell phone number to SMH on a specific date, (2) to a specific medical service provided by SMH, (3) for which Plaintiff failed to pay, and (4) for which Defendant called Plaintiff’s cell phone. It is unclear what medical debts were the basis of Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone. It is also unclear whether the debts were owed to SMH, as opposed to an affiliated doctor or entity.  The evidence before the Court shows that on July 22, 2011, January 10, 2012, and May 22, 2012, Plaintiff provided his cell phone number to SMH in connection with his treatment. To the extent that Defendant can show at trial that Plaintiff’s treatment on those dates resulted in debts owed to SMH for which Defendant called Plaintiff’s cell phone (prior to any revocation of consent in the summer of 2013), those calls would not violate the TCPA due to Plaintiff’s provision of his cell phone number evidencing his prior express consent. See Moise v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 950 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1253 (S.D.Fla.2011) (stating that if the plaintiff provided his cell phone number directly to Quest Diagnostics, then the defendant would have had the plaintiff’s express consent to call his cell phone regarding the debt owed to Quest Diagnostics); Penn v. NRA Group, LLC, 2014 WL 2986787, at *3 (D.Md. July 1, 2014) (stating that because the plaintiff provided his cell phone number to the hospital in connection with the medical treatment that resulted in the debt that he was called about, the defendant lawfully called the plaintiff’s cell phone with his prior express consent). Such evidence would show that Plaintiff provided his cell phone number during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed and for which his cell phone was called. However, because such evidence is not currently before the Court, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.