Posts in Class Actions.

Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, No. 21-10199 (11th Cir. July 27, 2022)

Plaintiffs’ Claims and Allegations

Plaintiff’s claims, and those advanced in two separately filed class action lawsuits alleging violation of the TCPA by making unsolicited promotional/marketing communications, were consolidated after which time the Parties entered into settlement negotiations. Thereafter, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed class settlement agreement defining the class as: All persons within the United States who received a call or text message to his or her cellular telephone from ...

Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., No. 15-c-11038 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2016).

Plaintiff dental practice filed a class action lawsuit relating to a fax it received, contending that the fax violated the TCPA. Defendant made a settlement offer of $3,005 plus costs, which Plaintiff rejected. The next day, Defendant moved to deposit $3,600 with the Court under Rule 67, taking the position that $3,600 exceeded what Plaintiff could ever hope to recover because it assumed maximum liability: (1) $3,005 for two willful violations of the TCPA- one for sending the unwanted fax, and one for failing ...

Drozdowski v. Citibank, Inc., 2:15-cv-02786-STA-cgc (Aug. 31, 2016)

Husband and wife Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant regarding calls allegedly made to Plaintiffs' cell phones to collect debt owed on the husband's account after Plaintiffs purportedly revoked consent to be contacted. Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, contending that Plaintiffs' claims had to be arbitrated on an individual, non-class basis. At issue were four credit card accounts, three of which belonged to the husband, one of which belonged to the wife and all of which ...

Dixon v. Monterey Fin. Services, Inc., No. 15-cv-03298 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016)

At issue before the Court was Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and Defendant's second motion to strike class definition as a fail-safe class. Noting that "[t]he fail-safe appellation is simply a way of labeling the obvious problems that exist when the class itself is defined in a way that precludes membership unless the liability of defendant is established," the Court concluded that the following class definition was an impermissible fail-safe class:

All Persons within the United States who received ...

Posted in: Class Actions

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857, 2016 WL 228345 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) In a much anticipated decision, a majority of the United States Supreme Court held that unaccepted offers of full judgment and settlement do not moot claims. By way of background, Plaintiff filed a TCPA class action. Defendant made an a settlement offer and offer of judgment for the amount of relief the named plaintiff could obtain, then moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when Plaintiff rejected the offers. The Majority (Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan)

Jeffrey M. Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A., et al. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, No. 8:13-cv-02136-SDM-AEP (Oct. 24, 2013) Three dentists, a pest control service and two other alleged recipients of unsolicited faxes selling football tickets filed a class action Complaint against the Tampa Buccaneers for allegedly violating the TCPA. Within three days of removing the case to federal court, Defendant made an offer of judgment under Rule 68 to each Plaintiff. Two days later, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, advocating the absence of an Article III "case or controversy ...

A class action complaint was filed against Defendant who sent 8,430 faxes to more than 200 people containing business advise. The trial court granted judgment against Defendant in the amount of $4,215,000, which Defendant appealed. Rejecting any argument that a fax recipient must actually print a fax or have otherwise experienced monetary loss to state a claim, the Court stated that the TCPA provides a $500 penalty for annoyance adding that even a recipient who gets the fax on a computer and deletes it without printing experiences some loss; "the value of time necessary to realize that ...

Hanley v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, No. 12 C 4158 (N.D. Ill. March 21, 2013) After allowing Plaintiff multiple opportunities to submit additional authority in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the court dismissed his class action Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, stating "[t]his case is much ado about nothing. At least that is the conclusion that the Court must reach after reviewing Hanley's wholly inadequate complaint in which next to nothing is pleaded." The court added that "Hanley does not plead how many calls [Defendant ...

Bank v. Independence Energy Group, LLC, No. 12-cv-1369 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2013) Pending before the Court was Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider its dismissal of a class action Complaint based on a conclusion that New York Civil Practice Law 901(b) bars TCPA class actions in federal court. Plaintiff relied on the United States Supreme Court's holdings in Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, and various district court cases supporting Plaintiff's argument. Denying the Motion, the court concluded that Mims does not abrogate the U.S. Court of Appeals' holding in Holster III v. Gatco, Inc, that ...

Posted in: Class Actions

Small v. Kmart Holdings, Corp., No. 12-cv-11062, 2013 WL 1157339 (E.D. Mich. March 20, 2013) Pending before the court was Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's TCPA claim contending Defendant sent unsolicited faxes in violation of the law. Also pending before the court was Defendant's Motion to Strike class allegations based on Michigan law prohibiting such actions. Denying the Motion to Dismiss, the court stated "Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants sent the faxes; that Plaintiff did not give his permission to receive such faxes; there was an insufficient opt-out ...

Goodrich Management Corp. v. AFGO Mechanical Services, Inc., Civ. Nos. 09-43 (WJM), 11-2769 (WJM) (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2012) Pending before the court were motions to deny class certification in two separate cases. Defendants argued that: (1) Federal courts must enforce state law restrictions on bringing TCPA claims; (2) Under New Jersey law, private TCPA class actions are prohibited; and (3) Because New Jersey law applies to Plaintiffs' class claims, denial of class certification was appropriate as a matter of law. Plaintiffs opposed the motions, arguing that Federal Rule of Civil ...

Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC, No. 11-00011, 2012 WL 4903269 (D.N.J. Oct. 17, 2012) Plaintiff's class action complaint placed at issue allegedly unsolicited fax advertisements Defendant purportedly sent in violation of the TCPA. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative to dismiss the class action component of the complaint, arguing that New York Civil Practice Law § 901(b), which prohibits maintenance of class actions where statutory penalties are sought unless the statute specifically authorizes class actions, prohibited ...

3081 Main Street, LLC d/b/a New England Wine & Spirits v. Business Owners Liab. Team LLC d/b/a Bolt Ins. Agency, No. 3:11-cv-1320 (SRU), 2012 WL 4755048 (D. Conn. Sept. 24, 2012) Pending before the court was a Motion for Class certification and for Stay of Motion for Class Certification. Recognizing that class certification is only appropriate if the court is satisfied, after a rigorous analysis, that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied, the court concluded that such analysis was impracticable because Plaintiff filed the Motion for Class Certification before any ...

Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 11-56600, 2012 WL 4840814 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2012) Pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was the district court's: (1) Provisional certification of a class consisting of individuals with cell phone numbers that Defendant did not obtain from either a creditor or the class member, where the cell phone number had a California area code, or Defendant's records identified the class member as living in California; and (2) Preliminary injunction order restraining Defendant from using its dialer to place calls to cell ...

About The TCPA Blog

Email/Comment Policy

Disclaimer

Burr
Jump to Page
Arrow icon Top

Contact Us

We use cookies to improve your website experience, provide additional security, and remember you when you return to the website. This website does not respond to "Do Not Track" signals. By clicking "Accept," you agree to our use of cookies. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

Necessary Cookies

Necessary cookies enable core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility. These cookies may only be disabled by changing your browser settings, but this may affect how the website functions.


Analytical Cookies

Analytical cookies help us improve our website by collecting and reporting information on its usage. We access and process information from these cookies at an aggregate level.