Deborah Anderson listed her cellphone number on the national do not call registry in July 2005, yet starting in early 2022 and continuing through the present, she received numerous text messages from a rotating series of phone numbers, seeking to solicit her to use two real estate firms in the sale of her house, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-00591) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Anderson didn’t recognize the senders, and wasn’t looking to sell her Cleveland, Ohio, home, said the complaint. She didn’t give the firms, Distressed Solutions and Southeast Property Investments Network, prior express written consent to send text messages to her cellphone, it said. She suffered actual harm as a result of the text messages at issue “in that she suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance,” it said.

One must “affirmatively register one’s own phone number” on the national do not call registry for Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibitions to “apply,” said Shoe Carnival’s memorandum Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00215) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Evansville in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiff Timothy Moore’s class action (see 2312060001). Moore seeks to recover statutory damages for a handful of text messages he received, said the memorandum. He asserts that the texts were sent to him despite his phone number being on the national DNC registry and that the texts failed to sufficiently identify Shoe Carnival as the sender, it said. But there’s no claim under the TCPA “for a call -- if a text is indeed a call -- to a telephone number that is just ‘on’ the National DNC registry,” it said. If Moore didn’t register his own number, and he alleges no facts that he did, then he can’t state a claim. it said. Further, the screenshots of the texts he received prove that Shoe Carnival complied with the sender identification requirements of the TCPA that Moore alleges Shoe Carnival violated, it said.

Plaintiff Christopher Prosser voluntarily dismisses, without prejudice, his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Medica Central Insurance “for the purpose of consolidation of multiple cases,” said his notice Wednesday (docket 4:24-cv-00276) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri in St. Louis. The notice “is not to cause any undue delay, nor for bad faith or any other vexatious purpose,” it said. Prosser’s complaint alleged that Medica and its agents use automated systems to make outbound telemarketing calls and text messages to hundreds if not thousands of consumers across the U.S., soliciting consumers to purchase their services and insurance policies, in violation of the TCPA and the Missouri No-Call law (see 2402230006).

Manuel Guadian listed his personal cellphone number on the national do not call registry April 6 “to obtain solitude from invasive and harassing telemarketing calls.” Yet the pro se plaintiff received at least 11 solicitation calls through January from vendor Upside Legal offering debt relief services on behalf of Houston company Philip Sellers, alleged Guadian’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Tuesday (docket 3:24-cv-00074) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in El Paso. Sellers pays Upside a commission fee for every new client Upside generates on Sellers’ behalf, said the complaint. Upside and Sellers make “substantial profit gains through illegal telemarketing,” it said. Guadian of El Paso never requested information about debt relief services and didn’t provide his prior express written consent to receive any of the alleged calls, it said. Sellers and Upside “knew or should have known the requirements for making telemarketing calls and thus knew or should have known that the alleged calls complained of herein violated the TCPA and its regulations,” said the complaint. Upside and Sellers telemarketing agents “employ outrageous, aggressive and illegal sales techniques that violate multiple federal laws and state consumer statutes,” it said. The complaint also alleges violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code, the law governing telephone solicitations. Guadian seeks statutory damages, plus attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Liberty Mutual violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unwanted solicitation calls to consumers’ residential phone numbers that are listed on the national do not call registry, alleged Adam Ward’s class action Friday (docket 1:24-cv-10526) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston. The Cocoa, Florida, resident listed his number on the national DNC registry in August 2005 “to afford himself the protections” against “invasive and irritating telemarketing calls,” said his complaint. But Liberty Mutual nevertheless engaged in a telemarketing campaign directed toward Ward “in furtherance of its efforts to sell him an insurance policy he did not want or need,” it said. Ward didn’t provide express written consent or any consent for the company’s solicitation calls and texts, it said. Before the telemarketing campaign, the plaintiff didn’t have any established business relationship with Liberty Mutual, it said, saying he received a total of seven calls and text messages from the company. He experienced “frustration, annoyance, irritation and a sense that his privacy has been invaded,” said his complaint. Without having had the benefit of discovery to show otherwise, Ward alleges Liberty Mutual “is directly liable" for the unsolicited calls and text messages at issue because they were placed or made directly by the company, it said. Alternatively, if discovery reveals that some or all of the calls or text messages were made by third parties on Liberty Mutual’s behalf, then Liberty Mutual is vicariously liable for those calls or texts, it said. The FCC’s May 2013 declaratory ruling determined that hiring a vendor that engages in TCPA wrongdoing “was not a basis for avoiding liability,” it said. The FCC ruling “rejected a narrow view of TCPA liability, including the assertion that a seller’s liability requires a finding of formal actual agency and immediate direction and control over third parties who place a telemarketing call,” said the complaint. Liberty Mutual may have hired, encouraged, permitted and enjoyed the benefits of mass telemarketing by third-party telemarketers that are currently unknown to Ward and only known to Liberty Mutual, it said. The company “ratified its agents’ violations of the TCPA by accepting leads and deriving profit from sales imitated by unlawful robocalls,” the complaint said.

CR Fitness seeks Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff Ben Davis and his counsel for pursuing a “frivolous” Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit, said its motion Friday (docket 8:23-cv-02333) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Davis alleges that CR Fitness, the largest U.S. franchisee of Crunch Fitness gyms, embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign to sell club memberships by placing unsolicited, prerecorded telemarketing robocalls to consumers (see 2310140001). Davis alleges that he received a single unsolicited voicemail from CR Fitness in violation of the TCPA, but the “fatal flaw” to his case is that CR Fitness “never called him,” said the defendant's motion. Davis and his counsel by now “are well aware that the alleged voicemail was not made directly by CR Fitness, on behalf of CR Fitness, or at CR Fitness’ direction,” it said. The company provided its call records showing it never called Davis, it said. Notwithstanding the evidence of “non-liability,” the plaintiff “refuses to dismiss this baseless action, a failure that is magnified by the nature of class action claims where ascertainability is crucial,” the motion said. “This action is frivolous and should be dismissed," with sanctions being imposed against Davis and his counsel “for bad faith pursuit of these claims,” it said.

Plaintiff Meira Avauni Rawlings and defendant Bath Fitter have reached an agreement in principle to resolve all of Rawlings’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, said the parties’ notice of settlement Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00073) in U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania in Harrisburg. “The parties request that the matter be passed for settlement,” said their notice. Rawlings alleged that Bath Fitter, a marketer of bathroom remodeling products and services, has long engaged in aggressive telemarketing, and has settled at least one TCPA class action lawsuit involving telemarketing calls (see 2401170001). She alleges she received at least four Bath Fitter telemarketing calls to her cellphone, though her number was listed on the national do not call registry since June 2021.

Plaintiff Kellie Deits and defendant Rocket Mortgage have reached a settlement agreement in principle that contemplates filing a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of all of Deits’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against the lender, said their notice of settlement Friday (docket 2:23-cv-02385) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. The parties anticipate filing that stipulation within the next 30 days, said their notice. Deits alleged that Rocket conducted a nationwide telemarketing campaign to promote its business and to generate leads for its mortgage-related products and services by placing repeated, unsolicited phone calls to persons who have told it to stop calling (see 2311150001). She alleged that Rocket placed 30 telemarketing calls to her cellphone in 10 days.

Larissia Hall of Lakewood, Colorado, began receiving “consistent and repeated” phone calls Dec. 27 from Systems & Services Technologies, a debt collection agency, after she met with unforeseen financial hardship and fell behind in her payments on an $8,500 personal loan from Goldman Sachs Bank, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Thursday (docket 8:24-cv-00424) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. Hall estimates receiving no fewer than 50 debt collection calls from the agency through January and February, despite her multiple demands that the agency stop calling, said her complaint. Systems & Services placed its calls to Hall’s cellphone using prerecorded messaging technology, “a dialing system that is commonly used in the credit collection industry to collect allegedly defaulted debt,” it said. The system the agency used to place calls to Hall “has the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to determine the order in which to pick phone numbers from a preloaded list of numbers of consumers that are allegedly in default on their payments,” it said. There would be no reason for the agency to continue contacting Hall, “especially after having been notified to cease all telephone communications,” it said. Yet the agency’s phone system continued to keep Hall’s phone number stored, “causing its system to randomly and sequentially dial the number dozens of times thereafter,” it said. Frustrated with the agency’s “harassing conduct,” Hall spoke with her attorneys regarding her rights, “resulting in exhausting further time and resources,” it said. The agency’s “unfair and harassing conduct” has severely disrupted Hall’s “daily life and general well-being,” it said. She has suffered concrete harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation that accompanies collection calls and emotional distress, it said. In addition to the agency’s TCPA wrongdoing, Hall alleges violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for its unlawful conduct.

A debt relief services provider denies Yazmin Gonzalez’s allegations that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Business and Commerce Code by calling her incessantly to promote its services, said its answer Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00436) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in El Paso. Gonzalez estimates she received at least 27 calls from Countrywide Legal Group between Sept. 13 and Nov. 11, to a number she listed on the national do not call registry in February 2023 (see 2312020001). But Countrywide contends Gonzalez’s claims are barred because to the extent the subject calls occurred, such calls “were invited, permitted, consented to, and/or made pursuant to a personal or an established business relationship,” said its answer. It alleges the plaintiff “seeks out, invites, and welcomes” solicitation calls “in an effort to manufacture and pursue litigation.” She does so “not to seek compensation for damages allegedly suffered, as contemplated by statute, but rather to seek to enrich herself by seeking disproportionate payments” from TCPA defendants, said its answer.