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 ...
Anton Ewing v. SQM US, Inc., 3:16-cv-1609-CAB-JLB (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2016)
Plaintiff filed suit, placing at issue a single call to his cell phone using an ATDS, and attempting to represent a class of similarly situated individuals. The only allegation in the Complaint arguably relating to injury was a claim that the cell phone Defendants called was "assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls."
Noting this phrasing "mimics the language of the TCPA," and assuming for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff alleged he ...
Smith v. Altima Medical Equipment, Inc., Case No. Ed CV 16-00339-AB (DTBx) (C.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2016)
Plaintiff filed a TCPA class action lawsuit based on a single telephone call regarding the sale of medical equipment, claiming harm to herself and the class in the form of "multiple involuntary telephone and electrical charges, the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, and violations of their statutory rights." Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules ...
Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 3:15-83 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2016)
After granting summary judgment for lack of standing against a plaintiff who bought multiple cell phones and numbers for purposes of filing TCPA lawsuits, the Court was faced with a Motion to Amend Judgment wherein Plaintiff argued that dismissal for lack of standing mandated remand to state court for adjudication. At issue was whether a lack of prudential standing results in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Citing extensively from Hvizdak v. Citizens Bank of Pa., No. 14-cv-406 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2015), the ...
Romero v. Department Stores National Bank, 15-cv-193-CAB-MDD (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016)
On the eve of trial, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for lack of standing relying on the Supreme Court case of Spokeo v. Robbins. At issue in the case was Plaintiff's contention that Defendant called her more than 290 times using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System in violation of the TCPA. After the case was set for trial, Plaintiff prepared a pre-trial memorandum and the Court entered a pre-trial Order prepared by the parties. Neither document referenced any actual damages experienced by ...
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (May 16, 2016) In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the United States Supreme Court spoke on the issue of standing when statutory violations are alleged, and its opinion could have profound effects on TCPA litigation. Holding that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation, the Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, stating that because the "Ninth Circuit failed to fully appreciate the distinction between concreteness and particularization, its ...
On November 2, 2015, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Spokeo v. Robins, which raises the question of what constitutes requisite injury to support a claim for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In Spokeo, Plaintiff filed a class action Complaint against Defendant, accusing Defendant of violating the FCRA by publishing false information about him. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff's claim, concluding Plaintiff had not experienced the requisite harm to sustain a claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that violation ...
Leyse v. Bank of America Nat. Ass'n, No. 14-4073N (3rd Cir. Oct. 14, 2015) After receiving a prerecorded telemarketing call on the landline shared with his roommate, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit, which was met with a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. Of pertinence, is the U.S. Court of Appeals' holding that despite the undisputed fact Plaintiff's roommate was the subscriber and intended recipient of the call, Plaintiff had standing to prosecute a TCPA claim. Recognizing that consideration of who is the "called party" is relevant because prior consent of such an individual to ...
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 ...