Gaza v. Auto Glass America, LLC, No. 8:17-cv-1811-T-27AEP, 2018 WL 5775915 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2018)
Plaintiff alleged that he received five text messages, asserting claims for violation of the TCPA. Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending Plaintiff failed to produce evidence establishing that an ATDS was used to send the text messages. The Court began its analysis, noting that to succeed on his claim, Plaintiff must establish Defendant sent the text messages using an ATDS and that "[t]he essential function of an ATDS is 'the capacity to dial numbers without human ...
In Gonzalez v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 5:18-cv-340-Oc-30PRL, 2018 WL 4217065 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2018), the Middle District of Florida determined that the D.C. Circuit's opinion in ACA International v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) [hereinafter "ACA"], vacated the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") 2003, 2008, and 2015 Orders interpreting the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS").
The plaintiff, Wilfredo Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), alleged that Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC ("Ocwen") used an ATDS to place approximately 500 calls to his ...
Medley v. Dish Network, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-3534-36TBM, 2018 WL 4092120 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2018)
Joining a host of courts across the county, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently ruled that contractual prior express consent to be called cannot be unilaterally revoked. The basis for the Court's holding was that Plaintiff entered into an Agreement with Defendant, incorporating a Customer Agreement providing that:
By signing below, you authorize [Defendant], and any debt collection agency or debt collection attorney hired by [Defendant], to contact ...
Eduardo Pozo v. Stellar Recovery Collection Agency, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-929-T-AEP (M.D.Fla. Sept. 2, 2016)
Defendant called Plaintiff believing it was contacting a third party to collect debt on behalf of another. Plaintiff filed suit, asserting various claims including a claim for violation of the TCPA. The TCPA makes it unlawful to, among other things, initiate calls using any Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) or artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service. At issue was whether a LiveVox Human Call Initiator (HCI) is ...
Coatney v. Synchrony Bank, No. 6:16-cv-389-Orl-22TBS (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2011), Ricks v. Allied Interstate, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-00205-HES-PBD (M.D. Fla. July 11, 2016)
In two recently published cases, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida stayed proceedings pending the outcome of ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, which challenges the FCC's July 10, 2015, Declaratory Ruling. The basis for both Motions to Stay was the fact that the ACA appeal bears directly on the what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). As the Court in ...
As lawsuits asserting claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”), continue to rise in the wake of the consumer-friendly Declaratory Ruling and Order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) last July, see In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961, 7978 (2015), the systems and procedures utilized by businesses reliant on automatic dialing have become increasingly important. Indeed, as the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ...
Harrington v. Regions Bank, No. 2:15-cv-522-Ftm-29MRM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2016) Before the Court was Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. Plaintiffs opposed the Motion, contending that their TCPA claims were not subject to arbitration provisions found in various loan documents executed in connection with the subject debt and other account relationships with Defendant. It was undisputed, however, that the arbitration provisions contained a delegation clause vesting determinations of arbitrability with the arbitrator, not the court. Granting the ...
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 ...
Cellco Partners v. Plaza Resorts, Inc., No. 12-81238-CIV, 2013 WL 5436553 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2013) Plaintiff Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless filed a TCPA claim alleging millions of calls were placed to Verizon customers, approximately 27,678 of which were made to cell phones Verizon owns, pays for and provides to employees to conduct Verizon business. The ultimate question presented in the case was who possessed the TCPA cause of action, Verizon or its employee, since the TCPA provides that it is a violation of the statute to make a call without the prior express consent of ...
Buslepp v. Improv Miami, Inc., No. 12-601771-CIV, 2012 WL 4919809 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2012) Plaintiff filed a purported class action, contending that Defendant, which promotes and hosts events at its comedy club, sent unsolicited commercial text messages to potential customers using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and without prior express consent in violation of the TCPA. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his individual claims, which Defendant opposed contending Plaintiff failed to establish the elements of a claim under the TCPA. Noting that the TCPA ...
Buslepp v. B & B Entertainment, LLC, No. 12-60089-CIV, 2012 WL 4761509 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 5, 2012) Plaintiff's claims in this purported class action arose out of a contention that he received unsolicited commercial text message solicitations from an adult night club. Both Plaintiff and Defendant moved for summary judgment. Defendant argued that its Rule 68 Offer of a $6,000 Judgment mooted Plaintiff's claims. The court rejected this argument for two reasons: (1) The offer was silent with respect to Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief, and, as such, did not afford full relief; and ...