T-Mobile must file an answer by April 17 to plaintiff Wesley Todd’s Jan. 31 Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint, plus a motion to set aside the clerk’s entry of default that shows good cause for its failure to timely respond to the action (see 2303280005), said an order signed Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-14024) by U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. If T-Mobile fails to do so, a default final judgment may be entered in Todd’s favor, it said. If T-Mobile doesn’t respond, Todd has until April 24 to file a motion for final default judgment that includes affidavits of the amounts due from T-Mobile, “and any other supporting documentation necessary to determine the measure of damages and/or conclude this action,” it said. Todd alleges T-Mobile sent him “repeated text messages” to a cellphone number listed on the national do not call registry since May 18.
Plaintiff Christa Simmons and defendant Procter & Gamble agreed to the dismissal of Simmons’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against P&G, said their stipulation Monday (docket 0:22-cv-61956) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Her claims against P&G, which also alleged Florida Telephone Solicitation Act wrongdoing, are dismissed with prejudice, and the claims of the putative class members are dismissed without prejudice, it said. Simmons’ Oct. 20 complaint alleged P&G engaged in unsolicited text messaging to consumers without their consent to promote its Oral-B brand (see 2210210057).
U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce signed an order Friday (docket 2:23-cv-14024) directing his clerk to enter a default against T-Mobile for failing to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff Wesley Todd’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint by the required deadline. He ordered the clerk to “administratively close” the case for “statistical purposes only.” Todd’s Jan. 31 complaint alleged T-Mobile sent him “repeated text messages” to a cellphone number listed on the national do not call registry since May 18 (see 2302010044).
The second Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against T-Mobile in as many months was filed Friday when Detroit resident Latisha Josey alleged in a class action that Metro by T-Mobile repeatedly sent her telemarketing text messages advertising its promotions even after her “multiple requests” to stop. In an attempt to stop the text messages, she added her cellphone number to the national do not call registry Dec. 12, but the texts continued, said her complaint (docket 2:23-cv-10697) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan. Josey didn’t provide “prior express invitation or permission or consent” for these text messages, it said. “To the contrary, in response to many of these text messages,” she requested that Metro “cease texting her,” it said. “Metro uses automated systems to send outbound telephonic sales calls, including text messages, to hundreds if not thousands of consumers across the U.S.,” including to consumers whose numbers are listed on the national DNC registry, the complaint said. In the previous TCPA complaint against T-Mobile, Stuart, Florida, plaintiff Wesley Todd alleged Jan. 31 that the carrier sent him “repeated text messages” to a cellphone number listed on the DNC registry since May 18 (see 2302010044).
U.S. Magistrate Judge Chad Bryan for Middle Alabama in Montgomery signed an order Wednesday scheduling an in-person status conference for April 13 at 2 p.m. CDT at the request of Southern Power, the named defendant in pro se plaintiff Lee Cunningham’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint (see 2303220007). Cunningham alleges Southern Power inundated him with debt collection calls, but Southern Power denies involvement. Alabama Power, Cunningham’s utility company, would be the only proper defendant, says Southern Power. Cunningham, at the status conference,“should be prepared to discuss his understanding as to the respective involvement” of Southern Power and Alabama Power “in the underlying conduct that gives rise to his claims,” said Bryan’s order.
Rent-A-Center inundated Scotty Asher with daily debt collection calls using an automatic telephone dialing system that began in early 2022 and never stopped, alleged Asher’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00430) in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas. The calls involve a Rent-A-Center account that doesn’t belong to Asher, nor has he ever done business with the lease-to-own chain, said the Clark County, Nevada, resident. “The repeated calls were especially frustrating” because they tied up his phone line while he was traveling, said the complaint. Rent-A-Center didn’t comment.
Defendant Southern Power plans to file “an early motion” for summary judgment against pro se plaintiff Lee Cunningham’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint, said a joint status report Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Middle Alabama in Montgomery. Cunningham alleges Southern Power inundated him with debt-collection calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), and the calls persisted even after he asked the company to stop, said the report. Southern Power “had no involvement in the alleged conduct and is not a proper defendant to this action,” it said. Southern Power is a wholesale power company, “not a regulated utility that services residential consumers,” has never called his cellphone for any purpose, “much less” with an ATDS, it said. Cunningham acknowledges the calls originated with Alabama Power, with which he has an account, but Southern Power and Alabama Power are separate legal entities, it said. Despite Southern Power having no role in the alleged conduct, Cunningham “presumably intends to proceed against Southern Power” because it and Alabama Power are sister subsidiaries of Southern Co., it said: “Southern Power would not oppose a motion to substitute parties.”
Attorney Ahren Tiller of BLC Law Center filed a trio of Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuits Monday in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego, where he has logged over 100 similar cases since January 2021. The lawsuits against LendingClub Bank (docket 3:23-cv-00495), Synchrony Bank (docket 3:23-cv-00496) and Comenity Bank (docket 3:23-cv-00499) also allege violations of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). The defendants use an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA and RFDCPA, invading the plaintiffs’ privacy and causing them damages, the complaints allege. The plaintiffs, all residents of San Diego County, had consumer debt, having fallen on financial hardship, and were unable to maintain regular monthly payments, the complaints said. They allege agents for the financial institutions made repeated calls -- from 75-120 using ATDS -- to collect payments, despite receiving letters from the plaintiffs calling on them to cease calling. They seek statutory damages of $1,000 for RFDCPA violations; $500 in statutory damages for each negligent TCPA violation and $1,500 in statutory damages for each knowing or willful TCPA violation, said the complaints.
Plaintiff Jean Zoulek filed a voluntary notice of dismissal (docket 2:22-cv-01464) Monday in a class action against Gannett for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Gannett filed a motion to dismiss last month (see 2302280058), saying Zoulek failed to plead facts that could allow the court to “plausibly infer” Gannett’s A Marketing Resource company violated the TCPA. The complaint didn’t allege Gannett placed any calls to Zoulek, but it asserted the company should be held “vicariously liable” for AMR’s alleged calls. This month, Gannett filed a motion to strike class allegations, saying the complaint purported to identify a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), which applies to class claims for injunctive relief (see 2303070051). Zoulek’s claim for “significant statutory damages” under the TCPA shows the action is “predicated on seeking monetary damages,” or at least monetary damages are only “incidental” to injunctive relief, as required to maintain a class rule, defendants said. Permitting certification under the rule would “allow the monetary tail to wag the injunction dog,” that motion said.
Plaintiff Racheal Paul filed her first amended complaint Monday (docket 6:23-cv-00223) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando, substituting Margaritaville restaurants parent company IMCMV Holdings, for Margaritaville Enterprises in her Feb. 8 class action. She accuses the company of wrongful Telephone Consumer Protection Act conduct (see 2302080056). Paul alleges the company unlawfully sends telemarketing text messages without consent to consumers who registered their numbers on the national do not call registry and to those who have specifically asked Margaritaville to stop texting them. Paul listed her cellphone number on the DNC registry in April 2014, yet she received two text solicitations Jan. 29 offering a free appetizer if she visited a Margaritaville restaurant, said her complaint.