In Eggleston v. Reward Zone USA LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01027-SVW-KS, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20928, at *11-14 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022), Judge Wilson dismissed a TCPA "pre-recorded voice" case premised on the theory that the standard text messages that she received did not constitute a "voice" under the TCPA. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant's text messages violated § 227(b) because… Read More
A federal district court in Arizona has certified a nationwide “non customer” class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”) against Citibank, N.A. TCPA class actions carry enormous potential liability, as the statute provides for recovery of $500 to $1,500 per call for unconsented autodialed or prerecorded calls to cellular telephones. The case is Head v.… Read More
In Pascal v. Concentra, Inc., No. 19-cv-02559-JCS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239583, at *23-30 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2021), Judge Spero granted summary judgment to a TCPA defendant on the basis that no ATDS was used. Based on the undisputed facts relating to Textedly's functionality, Plaintiff does not dispute that the text messages at issue in this case were not… Read More
In Raphael Aus. v. Alorica, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-05019-ODW (PVCx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240677, at *5-6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2021), Judge Wright dismissed a TCPA claim but allowed a Rosenthal Act claim to proceed. As to the TCPA claim, Judge Wright held: The parties dispute whether alleging that a system calls a prepopulated list of customers or clients is… Read More
In Brown v. DirecTV, LLC, No. CV 13-1170 DMG (Ex), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231014, at *15-23 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2021), Judge Gee discussed how wrong number codes might impact class certification. But that does not mean that Plaintiffs' procedure is otherwise improper—if done in the proper sequence. The Class is defined to include only non-customers, and DirecTV has… Read More
In In re Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 11md02295 JAH - BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216747, at *32-34 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2021), Judge Houston denied TCPA plaintiffs' request for further discovery from the dialer manufacturer on whether its product was an ATDS. On May 27, 2021, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion seeking to reopen discovery for the limited… Read More
In Estate of O'Shea v. Am. Solar Sols., Inc., No. 14cv894-L-RBB, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199171 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2021), Judge Lorenz substituted a deceased TCPA Plaintiff’s estate as Class Representative. Next, substitution may be made by a successor only if the claim is not extinguished by the death of the named party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(a)(1). The issue of survivability… Read More
In Hogans v. Charter Communs., Inc., No. 5:20-CV-566-D, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182992, at *22-27 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 24, 2021), Judge Dever applied AAPC retroactively, and examined the various options for applying AAPC. In AAPC, a majority of the Court left unanswered the question of retrospective liability under section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) for the time period in which it was unconstitutional. Three possible… Read More
In Lynch v. Aml Network, No. CV 21-3574-GW-RAOx, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187234, at *11-14 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2021), Judge Wu kept jurisdiction over a state-law anti-spam case, disagreeing with the Plaintiff that he did not have Article III standing. Findings (e) and (h) explicitly compare the harms caused by spam emails to injuries caused by junk faxes and… Read More
In Brickman v. Facebook, Inc., No. 16-cv-00751-WHO, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175700, at *10-12 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2021), Judge Orrick dismissed a TCPA case at the pleadings stage. I recognize that some courts have considered the determination of whether a plaintiff has plausibly shown the use of an ATDS covered by Duguid to be more appropriately resolved on summary… Read More
In Lindenbaum v. Realgy, Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 20-4252, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27159, at *2-4 (6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that the District Court erred in dismissing a TCPA claim based on the period of unconstitutionality found in Barr. In 1991, Congress prohibited almost all robocalls to cell phones and landlines.… Read More
In Smith v. Leif Johnson Ford, No. ED109494, 2021 Mo. App. LEXIS 780, at *2-5 (Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2021), the Court of Appeals affirmed certification of a "ringless voicemail" class. Smith, a Missouri resident, filed a putative class action against Ford, a Texas car dealership doing business nationwide and in Missouri. Smith alleged Ford violated the TCPA by sending… Read More
In Borden v. Efinancial, LLC, No. C19-1430JLR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153086, at *13-16 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2021), Judge Robart dismissed a TCPA case based on Duguid. In this context, Mr. Borden's allegations are insufficient to establish that eFinancial's system is an ATDS. He alleges that eFinancial's system uses a sequential number generator to select which stored phone numbers to… Read More
In Loyhayem v. Fraser Fin. & Ins. Servs., No. 20-56014, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 23660, at *2-8 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that a TCPA plaintiff adequately pleaded a claim for relief for a call that left a pre-recorded message. The plaintiff in this case, Jonathan Loyhayem, filed this action under the… Read More
In Buell v. Credit.com, No. 4:21-cv-01055-KAW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142763, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2021), Judge Westmore refused to strike TCPA class allegations following Barr v. APAC. On April 19, 2021, Defendant Credit.com, Inc. filed a motion to strike Plaintiff Angela Buell's class allegations on the grounds that the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Barr… Read More
In Toney v. Advantage Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep, No. 6:20-cv-182-WWB-EJK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141242, at *8 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2021), Judge Embry denied class certification in a "ringless" voicemail message TCPA class action. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he, and others similarly situated to him, received a "ringless" voicemail with a pre-recorded message from Advantage. (Doc. 40 ¶¶ 31,… Read More
In Dudley v. Solar, No. 21-659, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135609 (E.D. Pa. July 21, 2021), Judge Pandora held that DNC claims exist for calls placed to cellular telephones. Vision Solar argues that Plaintiffs have no cognizable private right of action under § 227(c) of the TCPA because they fail to allege facts that give rise to a plausible inference… Read More
In Perez v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 4:19-cv-07288-YGR, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118267, at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2021), Judge Gonzalez Rogers said that Duguid was not much help to an insurance carrier fighting a final TCPA judgment entered against its insured. In this action, Ignacio Perez is now seeking to recover monies against Indian Harbor. (See Dkt. No. 1 at… Read More
In Hufnus v. Donotpay, Inc., No. 20-cv-08701-VC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118325, at *1-5 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2021), Judge Chhabria dismissed a TCPA claim on the basis that defendant did not call using an ATDS. DoNotPay's motion to dismiss is granted. To state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Hufnus must allege that DoNotPay sent messages using… Read More
In Timms v. Usaa Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 3:18-cv-01495-SAL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108083, at *8 (D.S.C. June 9, 2021), Judge Lydon ruled against a TCPA plaintiff on whether an aspect dialer was an ATDS after Duguid. Defendant's Motion submits that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the TCPA claim because it did not use an ATDS… Read More
