Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

TCPA

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 Cour v. Life360, Inc., 2016 WL 4039279, at *4 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Henderson dismissed a TCPA claim arising from a group-texting app.  First, Judge Henderson found that the claim survived a Spokeo challenge. Here, however, Cour has not simply alleged a procedural violation; instead, he relies on an allegation that he was harmed because Life360 invaded his privacy. FAC ¶ 53.… Read More

In Carlisle v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 2016 WL 4011238, at *1 (N.D.Ga., 2016), Judge Thrash granted summary judgment to a TCPA creditor who manually dialed calls to the called party. The Plaintiff brings a claim under the TCPA. “The TCPA prohibits the use of an [Automatic Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”) ] to make any call (other than a call… Read More

In Duchene v. OnStar, LLC, 2016 WL 3997031, at *2–7 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Hood found that a TCPA plaintiff pleaded enough to plead use of an ATDS, but not enough to plead willfulness. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's sole allegation regarding Defendant's use of an ATDS is: “Upon information and belief, the dialing system used to call the [p]laintiff had the… Read More

In Weisberg v. Stripe, Inc., 2016 WL 3971296, at *4–5 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Tigar dismissed a TCPA case at the pleadings stage for wont of pleading an ATDS. Plaintiff further relies on the case of Harnish v. Frankly Co., in which the court held that allegations claiming that text messages were sent “en masse,” had “generic” and “impersonal” content, and… Read More

In Sliwa v. Bright House Networks, LLC, 2016 WL 3901378, at *3-5 (M.D.Fla., 2016), Judge Steele refused to stay a TCPA case pending the outcome of the proceedings in the DC Circuit. Bright House's argument that a stay is warranted in light of the appeal pending in the D.C. Circuit assumes two things: first, that the Circuit Court's ruling is… Read More

It's sort of fact specific, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Holtzman v. Turza, 2016 WL 3648390, at *1-2 (7th Cir. 2016) held that the residue of a supersedeas bond goes back to the Defendant, and Plaintiff's counsel can't base its fees on the entire amount of the fund, only that which was paid out. Attorney Gregory… Read More

In Lathrop v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2016 WL 3648596, at *2-3 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Tygar deferred ruling on Uber's summary judgment motion until Plaintiff had an opportunity to do a bunch of discovery. Plaintiffs have satisfied the criteria for granting a Rule 56(d) motion. First, Plaintiffs have timely submitted, with their Rule 56(d) motion, a supporting declaration specifying the reasons… Read More

In Adamo v. Synchrony Bank, 2016 WL 3621129, at *1 (M.D.Fla., 2016), Judge Dalton refused to stay a TCPA case based on the ACA proceedings pending before the DC Circuit because the 11th Circuit will not be bound by it. Defendant seeks a stay of this action pending resolution of appeals that were pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and… Read More

In Mey v. North American Bancard, 2016 WL 3613395, at *3-4 (C.A.6 (Mich.), 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that payment of actual cash did not moot a TCPA class action under Campbell-Ewald. In an effort to tee up that question, NAB responded to Campbell-Ewald by mailing Mey's attorney a cashier's check for $4,500, apparently for three calls… Read More

In Central Alarm Signal, Inc. v. Business Financial Services, Inc. 2016 WL 3595627, at *2 (E.D.Mich., 2016), Judge Whalen allowed a TCPA class action plaintiff to conduct discovery of faxes beyond the scope of what was attached to the complaint or defined by the class. That Plaintiff attached only a single fax to the FAC does not circumscribe the class allegations… Read More

In Ellis v. Phillips and Cohen Associates, Ltd., 2016 WL 3566981, at *3-5 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Davila found a triable issue of material fact as to whether a debt incurred by Plaintiff's corporation, for which she denied responsibility, was a "commercial" debt under the FDCPA. As this court previously observed when addressing Defendant's motion to dismiss, a “consumer debt” qualifying… 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 Mora v. Zeta Interactive Corp., 2016 WL 3477222, at *2-3 (E.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Drozd denied a motion to dismiss filed by a TCPA blast-fax's CEO who was named in a TCPA case against his company. In the instant case, defendants argue that the allegations specifically leveled against defendant Steinberg lack details of his direct participation in any wrongdoing and… Read More

In Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, here, Judge Gibson held that a TCPA Plaintiff cannot set up an enterprise designed to obtain TCPA damages and still have constitutional standing to sue under the TCPA. Plaintiff’s testimony once again establishes that she has not suffered an injury-in-fact. It is well settled that a plaintiff “cannot manufacture standing by choosing to make… Read More

In Dixon v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc., 2016 WL 3456680, at *4-5 (N.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Chesney denied a TCPA defendant’s summary judgment motion on the basis that triable issues of fact existed whether the Plaintiff revoked consent. Initially, the Court finds unpersuasive defendant's argument that the statements, which were recorded by defendant at the time they were made, are insufficient… Read More

In Dr. Robert L. Meinders D.C., Ltd v. Emery Wilson Corporation, 2016 WL 3402621, at *4-5 (S.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Yandle certified a TCPA blast fax class action.  Sterling is a corporation that provides management training and consulting services to entrepreneur and business clients (Doc. 69-8, p. 18). To promote its business, Sterling sends faxes to existing and potential customers promoting… Read More

In Izsak v. Draftkings, Inc., 2016 WL 3227299, at *3-5 (N.D.Ill., 2016), Judge Wood found that a TCPA Plaintiff pleaded enough to get past the pleadings stage. This Court agrees with the view that where a fact—here, use of an ATDS—is itself an element of the claim, “it is not sufficient to recite that fact verbatim without other supporting details.”… Read More

In Waterbury v. A1 Solar Power Inc., 2016 WL 3166910, at *3 (S.D.Cal., 2016), Judge Anelo found that a TCPA plaintiff had not adequately pleaded the use of an ATDS. Defendants contend Plaintiff Bell has not stated a claim under the TCPA because she has not adequately alleged that Defendants used an ATDS. Plaintiff Bell alleges Defendants violated a provision… Read More

In Lundstedt v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 2016 WL 3101999, at *5 (D.Conn., 2016), Judge Meyer allowed a TCPA case past the pleading stage where the Plaintiff could allege facts supporting the use of an ATDS. Plaintiff did state at oral argument, however, that “you could tell it was a computer because you would be waiting and waiting and… Read More

1 19 20 21 22 23 50