Pa. Judge Denies Integrity Vehicle's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann for Middle Pennsylvania in Williamsport denied Integrity Vehicle Group’s motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit brought by plaintiff Zach Fridline, said his signed order Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-01194). Fridline alleged telemarketing agent Vanguard…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
placed several calls to Fridline but didn’t allege Integrity made any calls, Integrity argued in its September motion to dismiss (see 2309190059), but Fridline maintains Vanguard and Integrity entered into a contract requiring Vanguard to promote Integrity products on telemarketing calls to generate new customers, and Integrity then accepted business originating through Vanguard’s telemarketing calls. Fridline “plausibly alleges that Integrity contracted with Vanguard to call potential customers on its behalf,” said Brann's memorandum opinion Tuesday. He received a call from Vanguard soliciting Integrity’s services, and he received mail from Vanguard containing Integrity’s contract, said Brann. “On a motion to dismiss, that is enough.” If in discovery it is revealed that Integrity “had no such power under its contract with Vanguard, then judgment may be entered in favor of Integrity at that time,” he said. Integrity’s answer to the amended complaint is due no later than 14 days from the Tuesday order.