Defendant loanDepot seeks an order to stay and bifurcate discovery in plaintiff Zachary Sawicki’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint pending the court’s ruling on loanDepot’s motions to dismiss and to strike Sawicki’s class allegations, said its motion Friday (docket 2:22-cv-14425) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. Discovery should be stayed because resolution of the pending motions “will dispose of or substantially narrow the scope of claims in this action,” it said. LoanDepot also favors doing discovery in three phases “to effectively manage this litigation, conserve party and judicial resources, and resolve factual disputes” about the merits of Sawicki’s individual claims, it said. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon previously denied loanDepot’s three separate motions to strike the class allegations and to stay or bifurcate discovery, giving the defendant until Friday to refile the requests as “two consolidated motions” (see 2303010003). LoanDepot's separate refiled motion Friday to strike Sawicki's class allegations said the plaintiff "seeks to represent four classes, all of which are fatally flawed, and in a manner that discovery cannot repair."
Charter Communications removed to U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale on Friday the putative class action filed Feb. 8 in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County in which pro se plaintiff Shlomy Halawani alleges Spectrum violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Charter denies Halawani’s “claims of wrongdoing, his requests for relief, and that any class can be certified,” said its notice of removal (docket 0:23-cv-60453). Spectrum “engages in unsolicited robocalling” to market its internet, mobile and television services in violation of the statutes, said Halawani’s complaint. Spectrum’s robocalls have caused Halawani and members of the proposed class harm, including violations of their statutory rights and invasion of their privacy, it said.
The case brought by eight states alleging multiple defendants initiated millions of robocalls to the public in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act “is subject to being called to trial on short notice” during the month of June, said a proposed modified docket control order (docket 4:20-cv-02021) signed Thursday by U.S. District Judge George Hanks for Southern Texas in Houston. The court estimates a jury trial will last 10 days, said the order. Hanks recently signed orders entering $122.34 million monetary judgments against two defendants, John Spiller and Jakob Mears, suspended for their inability to pay (see 2303070017).
Travis County, Texas, consumer Daniel Graham filed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-00254) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin in which he alleges 25 “John Does” inflicted “concrete injury” by inundating him with more than a dozen unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing calls to a number he listed on the national do not call registry since November 2021. The identities of the telemarketers “are unknown but may be disclosed in discovery and should be made parties to this action,” said his complaint, which misidentifies the statute as the Telephone Communication Practices Act. Graham has “information and belief” that the calls’ originating number, 254-268-7594, is registered to Onvoy, a telecommunications services provider, it said. He’s represented by Austin attorney Brent Devere.
Plaintiff Mary Graehl and defendant Kohl’s settled all Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims between them, and are in the process of completing the final closing documents and filing for the case's dismissal, said Graehl’s settlement notice Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-01341) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The parties anticipate that process will take no more than 60 days and request that the court “retain jurisdiction for any matters related to completing and/or enforcing the settlement,” said the notice. They propose to file a dismissal with prejudice within 60 days, and ask the court to stay all proceedings until then, it said. Graehl’s Nov. 14 complaint alleged Kohl’s inundated her with “harassing” debt collection calls, and that she suffered “concrete harm” as a result of Kohl’s actions (see 2211140063).
The settlement agreement that defendant-appellant DirecTV reached with plaintiffs-appellees David Vance, Roxy Vance and Carla Shultz (see 2301300002) “calls for the drafting of additional documents, including a preliminary approval order, class notices, and a claim form,” the parties told the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a joint status report Wednesday (docket 22-1958). “Once the parties agree on the form and content of those additional documents, the settlement agreement will be ready for execution,” said the report. After the parties execute the agreement, the plaintiffs will have two weeks “to move for preliminary approval of the agreement in the district court,” it said. The parties will update the 4th Circuit every 30 days, it said. DirecTV is appealing the district court’s certification of class members in a December 2017 Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint. DirecTV also is appealing the lower court’s denial of its motion to compel plaintiff Shultz to arbitration of her TCPA claims. The 4th Circuit consolidated the two appeals in October.
Little progress has been made since attorneys for plaintiff Mario Vega and defendant Wells Fargo Bank signed a joint stipulation Dec. 21 sending their Telephone Consumer Protection Act dispute to binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (see 2212230002), said the parties’ joint status report Monday (docket 3:22-cv-01697) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Arbitration was initiated around Jan. 24, said the report. Wells Fargo submitted its answer in arbitration around Feb. 17, but “no arbitrator has yet been appointed and no final arbitration hearing has yet been set,” it said. Vega’s Nov. 1 complaint alleged Wells Fargo continued to “willfully call” him more than 75 times to collect a debt after his lawyer sent the bank a cease and desist letter May 5 revoking Vega’s prior consent to be contacted.
Plaintiff Thomas Gebka’s opposition to State Farm’s motion to dismiss his amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint “asserts that he will identify damages traceable to State Farm by showing how State Farm is vicariously liable for the alleged calls that State Farm did not make.” So said State Farm’s reply memorandum Monday (docket 1:22-cv-05546) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in support of its motion to dismiss. Gebka’s amended complaint “fails to identify any unlawful conduct by State Farm, nor does it allege facts that could support holding State Farm vicariously liable for the conduct attributed to the independent contractor agencies or the telemarketing vendors,” it said. None of the arguments Gebka advanced in his opposition is “sufficient to either establish standing or state a claim,” it said. Gebka “fails in his effort to support his claim that the callers were vested by State Farm with actual authority to place the calls at issue,” it said.
Goldman Sachs Bank inundated plaintiff Angela Talburt with 105 debt collection calls after receiving two certified notices that she was represented by counsel and had revoked her consent to be contacted by an artificial or prerecorded voice, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Thursday (docket 5:23-cv-00932) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. The California resident also alleges violations of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors “from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices,” it said. Talburt’s account was for an unsecured credit card, and she was making regular monthly payments on the account for several years before she became financially unable to keep up, it said. The bank began contacting her in July to inquire about the status of the account and to collect on the payments that were no longer being made, it said. “Undeterred even after receiving two certified notices” from her lawyer, the bank continued to contact her daily, it said. The actual call volume “may be much higher” than the 105 quoted, as the bank’s unlawful behavior “caused her to experience a significant amount of anxiety and stress,” it said. Goldman Sachs Bank didn’t comment Friday.
The Republican Committee of Chester County, Pennsylvania, seeks to dismiss plaintiff Mark Fidanza’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2212280028) for failure to state a claim, said its motion Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-05185) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Fidanza’s complaint asserts the committee inundated him with 17 text message solicitations Oct. 19, in the run-up to the Nov. 8 midterm elections, including 10 separate text messages to his cellphone in less than a single hour. The committee doesn’t deny it hired a third-party vendor, Buzz360, to send political messages that Fidanza received, but it didn’t “intend” that the messages “would be delivered to any of the intended recipients in the manner Fidanza alleges,” said its motion. That Fidanza received “multiple, repetitive identical texts” wasn't planned by the committee, nor was it “a violation of the law,” it said. Though it’s possible Fidanza’s number “was incorrectly on a list that was placed into the Buzz360 platform, this is not sufficient to amount to a violation of TCPA,” it said. “At best, Fidanza has established that his single number was texted repeatedly on two separate days,” said the committee. But he hasn’t “averred with any particularity” that the equipment used “had the capacity to and did generate random or sequential numbers for automatic texting,” as would have been unlawful under the TCPA, it said.