CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.18: Called Party

In Bank v. Icot Holdings, No. 18-CV-02554 (AMD)(PK), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 676, at *15-19 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2023), Judge Kuo denied class certification in a TCPA class based on ascertainability grounds.  The Plaintiff's claim sounded as a "customary user" of a cell phone for which his mother was the subscriber and had been a member of a previous class… Read More

In Hylton v. Titlemax of Va., Inc., No. 4:21-cv-163, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202470, at *8 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 7, 2022), Judge Baker denied a TCPA defendant's summary judgment in a re-assigned number case. Titlemax argues that summary judgment is warranted because Jennings consented to Titlemax calling the 7270 Number concerning his account. (Doc. 65-1, pp. 7-9.) This argument fails.… Read More

In Balschmiter v. TD Auto Finance LLC, 2014 WL 6611008 (E.D.Wis. 2014), Judge Stadtmueller denied class certification of a TCPA class defined essentially as either references or cell-phone transferees or both: “All persons within the United States who, on or after October 21, 2009, received a non-emergency telephone call from or on behalf of TDAF to a cellular telephone through… Read More

In Zyburo v. NCSPlus, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 4536932 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), Judge Rakoff granted class certification in a TCPA class action. This is a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C § 227 et seq., which prohibits certain kinds of telephone solicitations without the recipient's consent. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant repeatedly… Read More

In Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2014 WL 3907048 (N.D.Ill. 2014), Judge Kennelly held that a TCPA class was ascertainable, rejected the Defendant’s argument that, under Soppet, only the subscriber had standing and it could not be determined whether the subscriber answered the cellular telephone. Defendants appear to be making a two-part argument: first, the people… Read More

In Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.--- F.3d ----, 2014 WL 1258023 (11th Cir. 2014), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the district court's finding that State Farm did not violate the TCPA when it called its credit card holder on a cell phone that she shared with her housemate. This is a consumer-protection case arising from… Read More

In Olney v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,  2014 WL 294498 (S.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Curiel rejected a TCPA defendant's arguments against the Soppett "called party" analysis. Plaintiff, a resident of California, sues on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Defendant is an Ohio corporation that provides insurance policies with its principal place of business in Ohio.  Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in July 2013,… Read More

In Ashley v. General Elec. Capital Corp., 2013 WL 6133562 (M.D.Fla. 2013), Judge Steele allowed a TCPA case to go forward on a wrongfully called party theory.  In early June 2012, plaintiff received a telephone call to her cellular phone from defendant. (Id., ¶ 14.) Defendant left a prerecorded voice mail for a person by the name of “Rosa,” seeking… Read More

In Onley v. Job.com, Inc., 2013 WL 5476813 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge O’Neill found TCPA standing notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff was not the subscriber of the cell phone. Plaintiff Peter Olney sued Defendant Job.Com, complaining that Job.com used an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) to call Plaintiff's cellular telephone in an effort to sell or solicit its services without… Read More

In Iniguez v. The CBE Group, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 4780785 (E.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Mendez addressed the propriety of a class-action lawsuit brought against a debt collection agency under TCPA by an “unintended recipient” of collection calls.  The lawsuit was based on Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant placed numerous calls to her cell phone seeking to collect a debt owed… Read More