In Lundstedt v. I.C. System, Inc., 2017 WL 4281057, at *2–3 (D.Conn., 2017), Judge Meyer allowed an FDCPA claim to proceed based on the call pattern alleged in the Complaint. [D]efendant argues that the alleged pattern of calls—29 calls over a period of 24 days—is legally insufficient to show an intent to annoy, abuse, or harass plaintiff as the statute requires.… Read More
In Klein v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 2017 WL 2672290, at *10 (W.D.Pa., 2017), Judge Conti granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant against a Plaintiff who received calls over VoiP and through Google. There is no dispute that the challenged calls were made to Klein's VoIP number. Collectcents and Commerce Energy, however, dispute that either of them can be held… Read More
In Ewing v. SQM US, Inc., 2016 WL 5846494, at *2–3 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Bencivengo dismissed a TCPA claim because the alleged harm -- a charge for the call - would have been incurred whether the call was properly placed (manually) or improperly placed (autodialed). Accordingly, it did not confer "concrete injury" sufficient to confer Article III standing. The only allegation in… Read More
In Telephone Science Corporation v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, 2016 WL 4179150, at *5 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge St. Eve found adequate standing in a TCPA case. TSC operates a service called “Nomorobo,” designed to help consumers avoid incoming computerized telephone calls that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) refers to as “robocalls”—calls made with either an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”)… Read More
In Klein v. Just Energy Group, Inc., 2016 WL 3539137, at *2 (W.D.Pa., 2016), Judge Conti granted summary judgment to an energy company who's debt collectors placed wrong-party calls to Klein over Klein's Google VoiP. Because Klein's VoIP number had been erroneously recorded as the number for P.S., Commerce Energy, Inc. d/b/a Just Energy provided Klein's VoIP number to Collectcents… Read More
In Stavrinides v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2016 WL 1598744, at *2 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Alsup held: As an initial matter, plaintiff has not alleged that he was charged for the call, which he must allege to state a claim under the TCPA. Moreover, the complaint does not, in anything other than conclusory fashion, allege that PG&E used an… Read More
In Kaplinsky v. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, 2016 WL 885049, at *2-3 (D.N.J., 2016), Judge Thompson found that a TCPA Plaintiff need plead that he was charged for the call in order to state a claim. But as to Plaintiff's second argument, the Court finds that it is necessary to grant reconsideration on this point. Whether a plaintiff must… Read More
In Yount v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2016 WL 554851, at *7-8 (E.D.Tenn., 2016), Judge Greer granted summary judgment to a TCPA plaintiff who received calls to her cellular telephone by use of an ATDS, even though she was not charged for the calls. There is no dispute of fact that FKSC made the six telephone calls to plaintiff's cellular telephone… Read More
In Abella v. Mozea, LLC, , 2015 WL 6599747, at *4 (E.D.Pa. 2015), Judge Dalzell allowed a TCPA text-message class action past the pleading stage, based on allegations that Defendant SAC is a student loan consolidation and forgiveness service that offers assistance to consumers hoping to alleviate their student loan debt burden. Compl. at ¶ 10. Defendant Mozeo is an… Read More
In Telephone Science Corp. v. Trading Advantage, LLC, 2015 WL 672266 (N.D.Ill. 2015), Judge Guzman found that the TCPA was not limited to consumer protection only; it applied to autodialed calls made to a commercial business' cellular telephones, too. Telephone Science Corporation (“TSC”) brings this case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) seeking relief for telemarketing calls defendants made to… Read More
In Gesten v. Stewart Law Group, LLC, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2014 WL 7243330 (S.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Cohn denied a TCPA defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint, rejecting the argument that the Plaintiff must plead that she was charged for the call. Defendant first argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue under the TCPA because Plaintiff has not alleged that… Read More
In Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc.--- Fed.Appx. ----, 2014 WL 4922451 (4th Cir. 2014), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a debt collector could not rely on the TCPA's land-line/EBR exemption where the debtor was charged for the call. The TCPA specifically prohibits “mak[ing] any call ... using any [ATDS] or an artificial or prerecorded voice ... to any… Read More
In De Los Santos v. Millward Brown, Inc., 2014 WL 2938605 (S.D.Fla. 2014), Judge Marra found that a TCPA Plaintiff had standing to pursue a TCPA claim despite the fact that the Plaintiff was not charged for the call. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for lack of standing, arguing that the TCPA requires a plaintiff to be charged for… Read More
In Taylor v. Universal Auto Group I, Inc., 2014 WL 2987395 (W.D.Wash. 2014), Judge Strombom rejected the argument that the TCPA requires the Plaintiff to have incurred a cost for the call, but agreed that Plaintiff’s providing his cellular telephone number to a predecessor business constituted consent to be called by the successor business. Tacoma Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Tacoma Dodge)… Read More
In Markovic v. Appriss, Inc., 2013 WL 6887972 (S.D.Ind. 2013), Judge Magnuss-Stinson found that a Plaintiff properly pleaded a TCPA case by alleging that calls used up minutes on his plan. Appriss contends that Mr. Markovic's Complaint must be dismissed because he has failed to allege that he was specifically charged for the allegedly unlawful call he received from Appriss.… Read More
In Mashiri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2013 WL 5797584 (S.D.Cal. 2013), Judge Lorenz found a TCPA claim adequately pleaded. First, Judge Lorenz rejected the Defendant’s argument that the TCPA does not apply to debt collectors placing calls to wireless telephone numbers by use of an autodialer: The TCPA contains separate provisions for calls made to residential telephone lines and… Read More
In Levy v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 5310166 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), Judge Bianco found an absence of consent under the TCPA for a debt collector calling a consumer's cellular telephone where the consumer had given a prior cellular number to the creditor. With respect to the issue of prior express consent, both the FCC and various federal courts… 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 Castro v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 4105196 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), Judge Ramos found that including a GLB Privacy Notice with a collection letter was deceptive. Judge Ramos also denied the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s TCPA claim. Judge Ramos found questions of fact that an auto-dailer was used and that trapping a consumer’s… 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
