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
In Martin v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, 2011 WL 2311869 (N.D.Ill. 2011), Judge St. Eve ordered discovery against a debt collector on it’s ‘consent’ defense under the TCPA, rejected the argument that evidence of consent was in the possession of the debt-collector’s clients or other third parties. Judge St. Eve explained: The TCPA prohibits making “any call (other than… Read More
In Frickco Inc. v. Novi BRS Enterprises, Inc., 2011 WL 2079704 (E.D.Mich. 2011), Judge Zatkoff denied class certification in a TCPA-fax case, explaining: In considering Plaintiff's motion, the Court does not agree that common issues predominate over the individual ones under Rule 23(b) (3). While Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of 3,787 individuals who received facsimile transmissions… Read More
We wrote previously about the California Court of Appeal affirming the vexatious litigant order against Mr. Kinder’s TCPA litigation over the 619-999-9999 telephone number. That followed an earlier report regarding an auto finance company’s defeat of Mr. Kinder in small claims court on the basis that he had assumed the risk of calls by his continued use of that telephone… Read More
We get it -- this case has nothing to do with personal property finance. But, allow us a little snicker this Friday morning because Maryland politicos running for office got their comeuppance under the TCPA when they robocalled Maryland voters. In Maryland v. Universal Elections, -- F.Supp.2d --, 2011 WL 2050751 (D.Md. 2011), Judge Blake held that political speech was… Read More
In a comment submitted to the Federal Communications Commission, the FTC urged its sister agency to hold that sellers of goods and services should be held responsible for sales calls made by others on their behalf, even if the seller did not physically place the calls. The FTC stressed that the FCC should not allow such sellers to escape liability… Read More
In Tara v. AFNI, Inc., here, Judge Dalzell held that an identity theft victim has standing to sue a debt collector under the TCPA for calling the victim’s land-line (not the victim’s cell phone) with its autodialer, but found that debt collection calls made to land lines are exempt from the TCPA – whether made to debtors or innocent non-debtors. … Read More
In Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, 2011 WL 1458779 (D.N.J. 2011), Judge Thompson allowed a TCPA class action to proceed in the district court under CAFA. Here, Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint alleges diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) o n the grounds that “the matter in controversy concerning the TCPA exceeds t he sum… Read More
In Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 1226371 (3d Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in a 2-1 split decision joined with other circuits and district courts to find that the TCPA’s exclusive grant of federal question jurisdiction in the state courts did not deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction… Read More
In Versteeg v. Bennett, Deloney & Noyes, P.C., -- F.R.D. – 2011 WL 159805 (D. Wyo. 2011), the Court denied class certification due to an absence of predominance of questions of fact and law common to classmembers, explaining: For Plaintiff's TCPA claims, the Court does not find that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over… Read More
In Bentley v. Bank of America, N.A., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2011 WL 1097452 (S.D.Fla. 2011), Judge Dimitrouleas held that a Plaintiff might be able to state a claims under the TCPA where calls were placed to the Plaintiff’s cell phone, as opposed to the Plaintiff’s land-line. Judge Dimitrouleas found that the ‘established business relationship’ exception to the TCPA prohibition against… Read More
In Powell v. West Asset Management, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2011 WL 1126040 (N.D.Ill. 2011), Judge Darrah found that the TCPA imposes no duty to mitigate on behalf of consumers receiving unsolicited telephone calls. Judge Darrah set forth the facts as follows: The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff's Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of the… Read More
In Gutierrez v. Barclays Group, 2011 WL 579238 (S.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Sabraw held that a consumer survived summary judgment on the consumer’s TCPA claim. Judge Sabraw held that any consent given by the consumer to be called on the consumer’s cellular telephone could, and was, revoked. Judge Sabraw also held that the consumer need not prove that he/she was charged… Read More
In Vance v. Bureau of Collection Recovery LLC, 2011 WL 881550 (N.D.Ill. 2011), Judge Dow found that Plaintiff had pleaded enough facts to proceed on a TCPA claim arising out of debt collection calls to his cellular telephone. The facts recited in the opinion were scarce, but, basically, it appears that the Plaintiff alleged that she received multiple automated debt… Read More
In Stuart v. AR Resources, Inc., 2011 WL 904167 (E.D.Pa. 2011), Judge Buckwalter allowed a Plaintiff's TCPA-FDCPA claim to proceed, explaining: Plaintiff next asserts that Defendants have violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., by calling her cellular telephone with automated recordings. (Compl.¶¶ 15, 36.) Under the TCPA, it is unlawful: (A) to make any call… Read More
Walker v. First National Collections Bureau is pending before the Fifth District Court of Appeals in Texas, which addresses whether TCPA should apply to debt collection calls, although there are a number of nuances that deal with Texas law. Oral argument has been scheduled for May 17 of this year. The appellant’s reply brief can be found here. Read More
In Santino v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Judge Curtin held, here, that the TCPA does not regulate land-line collection activities by a debt collector. After surveying the TCPA’s regulatory history, Judge Curtin concluded: In addition, several decisions subsequent to Watson provide support for defendant’s position that prerecorded calls intended solely for the collection of a debt–even calls received by non-debtors–are… Read More
In Meadows v. Franklin Collection Service, Inc., 2011 WL 479997 (11th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found in an unpublished opinion that a triable issue of material fact existed as to whether 300 telephone calls over a 2 ½ year period constituted harassment. We find that the district court erred in granting summary judgment… Read More
In Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 5463116 (N.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Wilken rejected a constitutional challenge to the TCPA after the United States intervened and opposed the argument. The case involved a suit against Defendants Autobytel, Inc ., B2Mobile, LLC, and LeadClick Media, Inc., under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (… Read More
In Edeh v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (D. Minn. 2010) , Judge Schiltz found that a debt collector does not violate the FDCPA by reporting an account to the Credit Reporting Agencies after a debtor demands validation without first validating the debt, explaining The Court rejects Edeh’s argument that a debt collector who, before verifying a disputed debt to a consumer,… Read More
