CEB Prac. Guide § 2B.18: "Called Party" -- Unintended Recipients

In Labou v. Cellco Partnership, 2014 WL 824225 (E.D.Cal. 2014), Judge England denied Plaintiff's request for pre-certification discovery, and granted a pre-emptive defense motion to de-certify a class action under facts reminiscent of Soppet:  Plaintiff filed the present complaint on April 30, 2012. She alleges that Defendants began calling Plaintiff's cellular phone number with an automated telephone dialing system to… Read More

United Healthcare has filed a petition with the FCC essentially taking a run at Soppett.  According to the FCC, United Healthcare indicates that it obtains prior express consent from individuals before placing healthcare-related informational calls to wireless telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.   “Unbeknownst to United,” however, “the wireless telephone numbers for… Read More

ACA’s petition was filed on January 31, but was accepted for filing by the FCC on February 11.  ACA’s petition is broad-based, asks the FCC to accomplish the following objectives: • Confirm that not all predictive dialers are categorically automatic telephone dialing systems. •Confirm that “capacity” under the TCPA means present ability. •Clarify that prior express consent attaches to the… Read More

In Whaley v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc., 2013 WL 5155342 (E.D.Ky. 2013), Judge Bunning ordered a TCPA/Unintended Recipient case to arbitration based on an arbitration clause that the defendant actually had with the recipient on an unrelated account.  Beginning in July 2012 T–Mobile used an automatic dialing system to call plaintiff regarding a debt purportedly owed by a third person, Thomas… 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

In Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., 2013 WL 3071334 (D.Md. 2013), Judge Quarles refused to certify his opinion that a call to a land-line made over VoIP Protocol fell within the TCPA’s “charged call” liability provisions rather than the TCPA’s “land-line” exemption. The facts, recited in more detail below, were that the Plaintiff set up his land-line through VoIP… Read More

In Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2013 WL 2558012 (N.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Hamilton found a Rule 68 offer insufficient to moot a TCPA plaintiff’s federal law suit, and found an ‘unintended recipient’ of calls to her cellular telephone pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim under the TCPA.  The facts were as follows: Plaintiff Richard Chen (“Chen”) filed the original… Read More

Ed.:  to my TCPA readers, this case has it all . . . In Jamison v. First Credit Services, Inc. --- F.R.D. ----, 2013 WL 1248306 (N.D.Ill. 2013), Judge Kendall denied a motion for class certification in TCPA case.  Plaintiff was a convicted felon. He pled guilty in 2008 to access device fraud. Specifically, he was part of a scheme to steal credit… 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