Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.11: Standing

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

In Stern v. DoCircle, Inc., 2014 WL 486262 (C.D.Cal. 2014), Judge Guilford certified a TCPA text message class.  The facts were as follows: Defendant DoCircle is a business that offers an online service allowing its customers to send text messages. (Rhie Depo., Dkt. No. 42–2 Ex. 2, at 10–11.) Marc Sporn, a third party who conducts business under the name… 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 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 Jamison v. First Credit Services, Inc., 2013 WL 3872171 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill. 2013), Judge Kendall denied a TCPA-class action plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of class certification because the Plaintiff was a convicted felon.  This case involved an alleged violation of the TCPA whereby FCS, on behalf of Honda, allegedly called Jamison's cellular telephone multiple times without Jamison's… Read More

In Nelson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 1141009 (W.D.Wis. 2013), Judge Snyder found that ‘preview dialing’ triggered the TCPA.  The facts were as follows: Beginning in March or April 2010 defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc., an automobile finance company, began making calls to 608–512–xxxx in an attempt to collect the debt from those loans. At… Read More

In Swope v. Credit Management, LP, 2013 WL 607830 (E.D.Mo. 2013), Judge Perry followed Soppett, holding that an unanticipated receiver of autodialed calls to a cellular telephone had standing to pursue a TCPA claim.  The facts were as follows: According to the complaint, defendant obtained an account receivable by Charter Communications and began making phone calls to collect the debt.… Read More

In Jordan v. ER Solutions, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 5245384 (S.D.Fla. 2012), Judge Dimitrouleas found no TCPA liability under the TCPA for auto-dialed calls to a debtor who had consented to be called at that number when she applied for credit, even though the debtor did not own the number.  Jordan got into debt by shopping at Seventh… Read More

In Agne v. Papa John's Intern., Inc., --- F.R.D. ----, 2012 WL 5473719 (W.D.Wash. 2012), Judge Coughenour certified a TCPA class action against PapaJohn’s pizza for advertising text messages send to thousands of consumers. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated state and federal law when they sent her and thousands of others unsolicited text messages advertising Papa John's pizza products.  Papa… Read More

In Martin v. Leading Edge Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2012 WL 3292838 (N.D.Ill. 2012), Judge Lefkow found that a TCPA Plaintiff stated Article III standing under the ‘damages’ pleaded. Defendants argue that “injury in fact” should be equated with “actual damages,” and that plaintiffs' failure to allege actual damages indicates that they lack standing. Leading Edge asserts that plaintiffs must allege… Read More

In Torres v. National Enterprise Systems, Inc., 2012 WL 3245520 (N.D.Ill. 2012), Judge Der-Yeghiayan found a TCPA penalty-only lawsuit still conferred Article III ‘case-or-controversy’ jurisdiction over the case. NES argues that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the TCPA claim based upon NES's contention that Torres lacks standing to bring a TCPA claim. Article III of the federal Constitution… Read More

We had hoped the issue would be addressed by the Supreme Court (as to RESPA) in Edwards v. First American Corp. 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), but SCOTUS dismissed cert. as improvidently granted.  So, the district court in Smith v. Microsoft Corp. 2012 WL 2975712 (S.D.Cal. 2012) addressed the issue whether a TCPA Plaintiff who otherwise had suffered no… Read More

In Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery, Co. 2011 WL 3704681 (N.D. Ill. 2011), Judge Kennelly held a debt collector liable under the TCPA where the original owner of the cellular telephone consented to be called on their cell phone.  When the cell number was transferred to another owner, however, the new owner began to receive calls, and sued under the TCPA. … Read More

In Anderson v. AFNI, Inc., 2011 WL 1808779 (E.D. Pa. 2011), the Court held in a landline case, rejecting Leyse, holding that § 227(b)(3) grants standing to any “person or entity,” and therefore any “called party” has standing under the statute, including wrong number calls. Read More

In D.G. ex rel. Tang v. William W. Siegel & Associates, Attorneys at Law, LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2011 WL 2356390 (N.D.Ill. 2011), Judge Kocoras rejected defendant’s claim that Plaintiff lacked TCPA standing.  Plaintiff Tang was the regular user and carrier of a cellular phone with an assigned number of XXX–XXX–3757. From August 5, 2010, to December 14, 2010, Siegel… Read More

1 3 4 5