Plaintiff Brandi Taylor and defendant, Kohl’s have reached a settlement of Taylor’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against the retailer, said Taylor’s notice Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-01874) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento. Under Local Rule 160(b), the parties will submit “dispositional documents” to the court within 21 days, said the notice. Taylor’s Aug. 31 complaint alleged Kohl’s placed no fewer than 30 debt-collection calls to her cellphone “after being notified to stop calling” (see 2309010001).

Alex Riemenapp’s Sept. 29 claims of Telephone Consumer Protection Act wrongdoing against Allstate (see 2310020004) are barred in whole or in part because Riemenapp, someone acting on his behalf or another authorized party consented to receive the alleged phone calls within the meaning of the TCPA, said Allstate’s answer Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00670) in U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin in Madison. Riemenapp’s complaint estimates Allstate placed no fewer than 30 solicitation calls to his cellphone number after he listed the number on the national do not call registry. But the plaintiff’s claims and those of the putative class members are barred because, as applied to this case, the TCPA is “unconstitutionally vague" and its application to Allstate would violate the due process provisions of the Fifth and 14th amendments, said Allstate’s answer. The statutory-damages provisions of the TCPA also violate the safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and 14th amendments, in addition to violating the due process clause, because they constitute excessive fines and are “grossly disproportionate to any actual harm that may be suffered” by the plaintiff or the putative class members, it said. Because Riemenapp and the class members have suffered no injury, they also don’t have standing to assert a TCPA claim against Allstate, it said.

Since plaintiff Arthur Cochran can’t establish that Boost Health Insurance Agency could be held vicariously liable for actions of the party alleged to have placed calls that give rise to his Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over Boost and the complaint fails to state a claim, the company said in its motion to dismiss Wednesday (docket 4:23-cv-00473) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. Cochran’s Oct. 31 class action alleges Boost runs campaigns marketing its services through telemarketing calls by contacting numbers on the national do not call registry and using a prerecorded message in “plain violation” of the TCPA (see 2311010004). While Boost denies that Cochran sets forth claims against it, the question of personal jurisdiction “is ripe for review at the pleadings stage,” the company’s memorandum said in support of its motion. The complaint “vaguely contends that the calls were placed by Boost but then defines the proposed classes to presuppose that a third party placed the calls on Boost’s behalf,” it said. But Cochran hasn’t and can’t “plead a basis to show vicarious liability because the third party who placed the calls was simply acting as a vendor under an arm’s length agreement, not in the capacity as Boost’s agent,” it said. Because the company didn’t direct any alleged “violative conduct” itself, or through an agent, into the state of Florida, it’s not subject to personal jurisdiction as to Cochran’s TCPA claims, it said.

April Roughton and Newsmax Media agree that all of Roughton’s individual Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Newsmax are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice, with each party bearing its own fees and costs, said their joint stipulation Wednesday (docket 9:23-cv-80969) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. All claims of the putative class are dismissed without prejudice, it said. Roughton’s class action alleged that Newsmax engages in unsolicited text messaging to promote its goods and services, and that it continues to text-message consumers even after they opt out of those solicitations (see 2306280007).

Advocate Debt Relief engages in campaigns that market debt settlement services to consumers using telemarketing calls involving prerecorded messages, “despite not having the requisite consent to contact those individuals,” plaintiff Jorge Rojas’ class action alleged Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-16752) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Since telemarketing campaigns “use technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day,” Rojas sues “on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls,” it said. The Illinois resident and members of the class were harmed “because their privacy has been violated and they were subjected to annoying and harassing calls and text messages that constitute a nuisance,” it added.

San Diego resident Anton Ewing filed suit to stop Coastal Debt Solutions, a debt-relief company, from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by sending him telemarketing text messages and calling him with prerecorded artificial voice messages without his prior express consent, according to his pro se complaint Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-02261) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. The hardware and software the defendant uses can store or produce numbers “using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention,” said Ewing’s complaint. Its automated dialing equipment includes features “substantially similar” to a predictive dialer in that it’s “capable of sending numerous text messages and calls simultaneously, without human intervention,” it said. Ewing estimates he received at least one dozen calls or texts from the defendant. He listed his cellphone number on the national do not call registry in February 2012 “for the express purpose that he would not receive unsolicited calls or text messages,” said his complaint. He has gone even further “to pay for various web pages informing the world of telemarketers to not call him or else they will be sued,” it said. Ewing also “expressly informed” more than 100 TCPA defense attorneys in writing across the U.S. “to inform their clients to not call him for solicitation,” it said.

Legacy Insurance Solutions placed multiple telemarketing robocalls to plaintiff Jack Hinesley to promote its timeshare divestment services, though his residential cellphone number was listed on the national do not call registry since August 2003, alleged Hinesley’s class action Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-00525) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. Legacy’s unsolicited calls caused Hinesley “actual harm,” in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, said his complaint. The Mary Esther, Florida, resident estimates that he spent “numerous hours investigating the unwanted phone calls,” including finding out Legacy's identity and how it got his phone number without his knowledge or consent, it said. The “cumulative effect” of unsolicited phone calls and voicemails like Legacy’s “poses a real risk of ultimately rendering the phone unusable for other purposes as a result of the phone’s memory being taken up,” it said. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision July 24 in Drazen v. Godaddy.com (docket 21-10199) found that plaintiffs have a concrete injury under Article III “with as little as one call or text from a defendant,” it said. The complaint alleges willful and negligent violations of the TCPA and FTSA and seeks injunctive relief and an award of actual and statutory damages.

Plaintiff Victor Mallh’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and should therefore be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), said defendant Luna Care’s answer Friday (docket 1:23-cv-06676) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn. Mallh alleges that Luna Care, an in-home physical therapy business that matches patients with therapists in dozens of states, sends unsolicited fax ads to market or sell its services and goods, in violation of the TCPA (see 2309080001). But Mallh and the putative class members lack Article III standing to bring the complaint because they haven’t suffered “a concrete and particularized injury,” said Luna Care’s answer. Luna Care's actions “were fair and reasonable and were performed in good faith based on all the relevant facts known to Luna Care,” it said. Luna Care “acted with a good faith belief that it had good cause and/or a legitimate business reason to act as it did and did not directly or indirectly perform any acts that would constitute a violation” of Mallh’s or the putative class members’ rights, it said. As a consequence, Mallh and the putative class members “are not entitled to any damages whatsoever,” it said.

A 3-4 trial is set to open May 12, 2025, in plaintiff Nelson Estrada’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Aragon Advertising, said a scheduling order signed Monday (docket 4:23-cv-03407) by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sam Sheldon for Southern Texas in Houston. Estrada alleges Aragon inundated his cellphone with 37 “unauthorized and illegal” solicitation calls to a number listed on the national do not call registry since June 2008. The case gained some notoriety last week when Aragon countersued Estrada for common law fraud (see 2312070040). It alleges Estrada “is a budding professional TCPA litigant who shops lawsuits around different area law firms.” It asserts that Estrada gave his consent to be called when he went on Aragon’s website and gave his contact information under a fake name. The company alleges he then faked interest in Aragon’s goods and services to drive up the call count so he could “extract a higher settlement payout for his manufactured TCPA claim.”

Plaintiff Darren MacDonald brought a class action Monday in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix to stop Rocket Mortgage from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing unsolicited calls and sending unsolicited text messages to consumers without their consent, including to numbers listed on the national do not call registry. Rocket Mortgage employees “have listed cold calling as a core part of their job descriptions in Linkedin profiles and job review websites like Indeed,” said MacDonald’s complaint (docket 2:23-cv-02558). Many consumers have posted complaints online about unsolicited telemarketing calls that they received from Rocket Mortgage, “including complaints from consumers who were not able to get Rocket Mortgage to stop calling or texting them,” it said. MacDonald listed his cellphone number on the national DNC registry in August 2003, yet he received multiple calls and text messages from Rocket Mortgage offering home refinancing services, it said. Court records show MacDonald’s class action is the 13th TCPA complaint filed against Rocket Mortgage since December 2021.