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 ...
Telephone Science Corp. v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, No. 15-cv-5182, 2016 WL 4179150 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 8, 2016)
Plaintiff operates a service called "Nomorobo" designed to help consumers avoid incoming robocalls by analyzing calls made to its "honeypot" numbers using a specialized algorithm enabling it to distinguish between auto and manual dialed calls. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that it received 12,240 robocalls between March 2014, and February, 2016, answering 747 of them. Plaintiff claimed to incur a $0.0075 charge for all calls answered ...
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 ...
Wellington Homes, Inc. v. West Dundee China Palace Restaurant, No. 2-12-0740 (Ill App. 2d March 13, 2013) Plaintiff filed suit, placing at issue allegedly unsolicited faxes sent in violation of the TCPA. At issue was the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant's argued that the Illinois two-year statute governing claims brought for statutory damages governed. Plaintiff argued the federal four-year statute of limitations codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 governed. The trial court agreed with Plaintiff but certified the question to the appellate court. Holding that the the ...
Birchmeier v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 2012 WL 7062748 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 31, 2012) Plaintiffs filed suit alleging Defendants made or caused unsolicited calls to their cell phones in violation of the TCPA while acting under the guise of conducting a political survey to get their foot in the door to sell ocean cruises. Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss, advancing multiple arguments, all of which were rejected. For example, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs ran afoul of Rule 8 by not distinguishing the role of each Defendant. But the court held that Plaintiffs alleged Defendants ...
Ploch v. FirstSource Advantage, LLC, No. 4:12-cv-310-JAR, 2012 WL 538476 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2012) Defendant moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim for violation of the TCPA, contending that Plaintiff could not adduce any evidence that it used an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) to call Plaintiff's cell phone, and did not leave any prerecorded message on Plaintiff's cell phone. Defendant submitted a declaration from its Dialer Operations Manager stating that Defendant did not place any calls to Plaintiff's cell phone using an ATDS, and all calls were made through ...
Martin v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, et al., No. 12 C 5147, 2012 WL 5048854 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2012) Plaintiff entered into a wireless contract with Defendant, which he later canceled. Plaintiff sent Defendant a payment with the cancellation notice of the amount he owed under the contract as well as revocation of consent to call his cell phone number. Defendant sent Plaintiff a bill, which included an early termination fee, restocking fee, fees for services used and other taxes and charges. Plaintiff did not pay the fees, and Defendant assigned the debt to three ...
Thrasher-Lyon v. CCS Commercial, LLC, No. 11 C 04472, 2012 WL 3835089 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 2012) Pending before the Court was the question of whether "prior express consent" under Section 227(b)(1)(A) of the TCPA means consent to be contacted in general, or consent to be contacted via "robo-calls." By way of background, Plaintiff, who was involved in a car accident, gave her cell phone number to the driver whose car she hit. The driver's insurer called Plaintiff for information about the accident. During the call, the agent asked Plaintiff for the best way to reach her. She said the number ...