Plymouth Rock’s Feb. 16 counterclaim alleging that Telephone Consumer Protection Act plaintiff Robert Clough violates the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (see 2402200001) “is nothing more than a contrived attempt to intimidate and bully a consumer for daring to hold it to account for illegal telemarketing,” said Clough’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim Friday (docket 2:21-cv-19343) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark. Plymouth’s counterclaim alleges Clough runs a “cottage industry” of filing “sham” TCPA lawsuits against insurance companies, of which the class action against Plymouth is only the latest. But the counterclaim “is frivolous on its face” and the court should dismiss it with prejudice, said Clough’s motion. The company is suing Clough for insurance fraud, even though he “has never submitted an insurance claim to Plymouth, never applied for benefits, never been a Plymouth customer, never applied for an insurance policy from Plymouth, and never initiated any communication to Plymouth whatsoever,” said the motion. The "sole basis" for Plymouth’s counterclaim is that when the company’s telemarketer placed an illegal unsolicited call to Clough in August 2021, he answered the call "and played along with the telemarketer’s bogus script so that the telemarketer would divulge who was calling and why, staying on the line long enough to obtain an insurance quote, even though he wasn’t really interested in obtaining an insurance policy," said the plaintiff's motion. Plymouth doesn't claim to have ever received any false information from Clough, "let alone to have ever relied upon it to its detriment or otherwise," it said.

Plaintiff Arthur Cochran and defendant Boost Health Insurance Agency have agreed on a May 6 date for a private mediation in their Telephone Consumer Protection Act dispute, said their joint status report Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-00473) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. In light of the parties’ agreement to explore “early resolution” of the dispute through mediation, the parties propose a brief stay of the case pending that mediation, said their report. They propose to provide another joint status report to the court on May 7, to notify the court whether a settlement has been reached between the plaintiff and defendant, it said. Cochran’s Oct. 31 class action alleges Boost runs a campaign to market its services through prerecorded telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the national do not call registry, in “plain violation” of the TCPA (see 2311010004).

U.S. District Judge John Kness for Northern Illinois in Chicago scheduled a telephonic initial status hearing for May 20 at 9:30 a.m. CDT in a Feb. 17 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against the Embroidery Shoppe, a Westland, Michigan, company specializing in custom-embroidered uniforms and apparel. Consistent with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are to meet and conduct a planning conference in advance of the hearing, and will file a joint status report no later than May 10, said a docket entry notification Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-01641). The plaintiff, William Gress, alleges the Embroidery Shoppe violates the TCPA by sending unsolicited fax advertisements to promote its goods and services to would-be customers without their consent (see 2402280001). His complaint contends recipients have “no reasonable means” to avoid receiving illegal fax advertisements because fax machines must be left on all the time to receive legitimate faxes.

Carvana plans April 11 to file a motion to dismiss plaintiff Michael Cribier's Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action, said an order Thursday (docket 3:24-cv-00094) signed by U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw for Southern California in San Diego, following a status conference he convened that day. Cribier’s Jan. 12 complaint alleges that Carvana violates the TCPA by “bombarding” consumers’ mobile phones whose numbers are listed on the national do not call registry “with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent” (see 2401160003).

Monster Reservation Group engages in unsolicited telemarketing to promote its family vacation reservation services, harming Matthew Miller in the process, alleged Miller’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Thursday (docket 6:24-cv-00555) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. Miller, a Lake Mary, Florida, resident, seeks injunctive relief to halt Monster’s illegal conduct, “which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of his daily life,” said the complaint. He also seeks statutory damages, “and any other available legal or equitable remedies,” it said. Any of Monster’s violations “were knowing, willful, and intentional,” and Monster didn’t maintain procedures “reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation,” it said. Miller’s phone number has been listed on the national do not call registry since June 2020, and Monster is required to check the registry before attempting to call, it said. Yet the plaintiff received multiple identical autodialed calls from numerous phone numbers, which when called, connect back to Monster, said the complaint. Miller reported Monster to the Better Business Bureau, and sought legal representation to stop its “swarm” of unsolicited phone calls, it said. He also used “every resource at his disposal” to avoid Monster’s “unethical marketing scheme,” including sending the company a letter demanding that the calls stop, it said. Monster or its agent responded by denying that Miller had ever been called, it said. Miller estimates the defendant or its agents phoned his cellphone at least 49 times, said the complaint. At no point in time did Miller provide Monster with his express written consent to be contacted, it said.

Aflac intends to file a motion to dismiss plaintiff Stewart Smith’s Feb. 15 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, said the insurer’s Rule 26(f) report Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-00679) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Smith’s complaint alleges that in Aflac’s “overzealous attempt” to market its motor vehicle warranties, it willfully or knowingly made, and continues to make, unsolicited telemarketing phone calls to numbers listed on the national do not call registry (see 2402160002). In discovery, Aflac intends to seek any records from Smith to support his TCPA claim, such as call records, recordings or notes of calls, said the Rule 26(f) report. But Aflac doesn’t think that discovery should proceed until the court issues a decision on Aflac’s motion to dismiss, which will resolve this case, it said. Smith hasn’t sufficiently alleged a claim for relief, “and proceeding to discovery while Aflac’s dispositive motion is pending would be a waste of judicial and party resources,” it said. Should the court deny the motion to dismiss, Aflac thinks that discovery should move quickly, and could be concluded within 60 days of Aflac’s answer to the complaint, it said. Should the case proceed to class certification, expert witnesses may be needed, said the report: “Aflac’s position is that staggered reports would be appropriate in this case because it is most likely that the experts will testify in support of or against class certification, and therefore Aflac’s expert will likely be a rebuttal expert only.” Aflac attempted three times between March 11 and 19 to confer with Smith’s counsel but got no response, so it submitted the report “without input” from the plaintiff, it said.

With plaintiff Aaron Bolton having filed a notice of settlement in his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Arizona firearms company Unlimited Ammo, U.S. District Judge John Badalamenti for Middle Florida in Tampa dismissed the case without prejudice, said his text order Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-00226). The dismissal is subject to the right of any party within 60 days to move to reopen the case, said the order. If no such motion is filed, the dismissal of this case will be with prejudice, it said. Bolton alleged that the company sent multiple telemarketing text messages to his cellphone number, though that number has been listed on the national do not call registry since July 2013 (see 2401250001).

The U.S. Supreme Court distributed for the justices’ April 12 conference Ambassador Animal Hospital's Telephone Consumer Protection Act cert petition, said a text-only docket entry Wednesday (docket 23-552). The Nov. 20 petition seeks to reverse the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of Ambassador’s TCPA complaint against Elanco, a veterinary pharmaceutical company (see 2403180006). Elanco allegedly sent Ambassador two faxes inviting its veterinarians to an informational dinner seminar, but the lower courts held that the faxes didn’t constitute unlawful unsolicited ads under the TCPA because they didn’t explicitly solicit purchases for Elanco products. Ambassador alleges that the fax invitations were pretext for marketing Elanco’s veterinary drugs and thus were unsolicited ads under the TCPA.

Kelly Pinn filed suit to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that IJ Wireless makes telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the national do not call registry as a representative of the FCC’s “affordable connectivity program,” said her class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-02315) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The Texas resident further alleges that IJ Wireless violated the TCPA by phoning consumers without their written consent and by contacting people who had previously asked to no longer receive the calls, it said. Pinn’s personal residential phone number has been listed for years on the national DNC registry, yet she received at least four automated calls from various spoofed caller IDs between Dec. 15 and Feb. 5, said her complaint. The plaintiff and members of her proposed classes have been harmed by the acts of IJ Wireless “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said.

A seller of laser hair removal services engages in unsolicited text message marketing, including to individuals who have listed their phone numbers on the national do not call registry, and to those who haven’t provided Semper Laser with their prior express written consent, alleged a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 0:24-cv-60440) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Semper’s “unsolicited text message spam” caused plaintiff Robert Livingstone and the class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy and intrusion upon seclusion, said the complaint. Beginning in November and through to the present day, Semper caused 19 automated text messages to be transmitted to Livingstone’s cellphone number to solicit the sale of consumer goods and services, it said. To send the text messages, Semper used a messaging platform that permitted it to transmit “blasts of text messages automatically and without any human involvement,” it said. The platform had the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator “to either store or produce phone numbers to be called,” it said. Semper would be able to send automated text messages to consumers, and in compliance with the TCPA, by securing the proper consent from consumers before sending those messages, it said. The burden and cost to Semper of securing consent from consumers that comply with the TCPA is “nominal,” and wouldn’t result in Semper having to cease its business operations, it said.