TCPA Plaintiff Guilty of Rule 11 Violation for Filing Suit With ‘Improper Purpose’: Meghani
Meghani World is taking off the gloves in its fight to defeat plaintiff Marquelle Vinson’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action allegations that the online luxury watch retailer engages in unlawful unsolicited text-messaging and continues to text-message consumers after they…
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.
opt out of its solicitations (see 2308310012). Vinson has failed to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted, and Meghani is entitled to a dismissal of her claims, said its answer Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-01938) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Vinson’s complaint also violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, said its answer. Rule 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support. Vinson's Rule 11 violation occurred because she had “no good faith belief based on a reasonable inquiry that there are any other persons or entities who would belong to the class” that she seeks to establish, said Meghani’s answer. Vinson “knows or should know that she knows of only one person similarly situated,” and that’s Vinson herself, it said. It appears that Vinson filed her suit “with no knowledge or information to support a belief that there were indeed others who would belong to a class” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, it said. It also “appears clear” that Vinson planned on filing suit, “and then seeking discovery from Meghani to see if there are any other potential class members, with no good faith belief that there were indeed any other class members,” said Meghani’s answer. Vinson violated Rule 11(b) by filing her suit for “an improper purpose,” said its answer. That purpose was “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation,” it said. She did so by seeking class action certification when she knows or should know that as of the filing of her suit, she knows “of no other prospective class members,” said Meghani.