Rocket Mortgage continues to conduct 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,” alleged plaintiff Kellie Deits’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-02385) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. Rocket made “numerous” such telemarketing calls to Deits “even after she demanded that she not be contacted again in violation of federal law prohibiting such practice,” it said. Diets brought the suit seeking injunctive relief, requiring Rocket to stop placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to residential and cellphone numbers of persons who had requested that such numbers be placed on the Rocket’s internal do not call list, it said. The Phoenix resident also seeks statutory damages and recovery of court costs and attorneys’ fees, it said. One of Rocket’s strategies for marketing its mortgage products and services is to “cold call” potential customers whose numbers it acquires from third-party sources, said the complaint. Rocket began calling Diets April 23, offering her mortgage lending products and services she hadn’t requested or inquired about, it said. Before terminating the call, she demanded Rocket not contact her again, it said. “Ignoring her request not to be contacted,” Rocket phoned Diets at least 27 more times over the next 10 days, it said. Diets “will fairly and adequately protect” the interests of her class members, said the complaint. She has hired counsel “with substantial experience in prosecuting complex litigation and class actions, and especially TCPA class actions,” it said. Diets and her counsel, Trinette Kent of Kent Law Offices in Phoenix, “are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action” on behalf of the other members of the class “and have the financial resources to do so,” it said.

Plaintiff Ruhi Reimer voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Lord & Taylor, according to his notice of dismissal Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-00741) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria. Reimer alleged in his June 7 class action that he gave Lord & Taylor his consent so he could receive the retailer’s promotional text messages, but couldn’t get the messages to stop once he revoked that consent (see 2306080039).

Plaintiff Shannan Davis is reminded of her "duty” under Local Rule 3.09(a) to immediately file a notice of settlement with the court of her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against telehealth company LifeMD after agreeing to resolve all or part of a civil action, even if the resolution is "contingent or unwritten," said U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington for Middle Florida in Tampa in a text-only endorsed order Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-02138). Davis’ notice of mediation Monday said the parties and mediator Gregory Holder have agreed to mediation on Jan. 8. However, as the parties “are actively working to finalize a settlement agreement to dispose of this matter in its entirety, the parties anticipate the mediation will likely become unnecessary,” according to the notice. Davis’ Sept. 21 class action alleges that LifeMD contributed to the national “barrage” of phone spam by initiating more than 100 illegal text messages to her residential cellphone (see 2309220001).

Real estate company Sunbelt Homes “routinely violates” the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending telemarketing text messages to residential cellphone numbers listed on the national do not call registry, alleged plaintiff Tyra Risher’s class action Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-05178) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Risher listed her cellphone number with the DNC registry in September 2003, “and has maintained that registration through the present date,” said her complaint. Risher estimates receiving “dozens” of Sunbelt text messages that began in August from a “rotating series” of phone numbers on her cellphone that pitched her on Sunbelt’s services to sell her home, it said. Risher didn’t give Sunbelt “prior express invitation or permission” to send text message solicitations 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. She also suffered “additional harm due to her frustration and difficulty in identifying the entity and persons responsible” for the unwanted text messages, it said. Sunbelt knew or should have known that Risher listed her cellphone number with the DNC registry roughly two decades before the text-messaging began, it said.

San Diego County resident Eli Olivares voluntarily dismissed without prejudice to refile his Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against home remodeling firm William Brothers Building & Construction, said his notice of dismissal Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-01858) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Williams Brothers hasn’t filed or served an answer or motion for summary judgment, so the notice serves as the dismissal with prejudice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), it said. Olivares alleges he received at least nine “live calls” from William Brothers on his residential cellphone to “pitch” home remodeling services, though his number was listed on the national do not call registry since 2015 (see 2310120001).

Plaintiff Renata King and defendant BMO Bank, successor by merger to Bank of the West, agreed to refer King’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims to binding arbitration, and to stay the case pending the completion of that arbitration, said their stipulation Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-07365) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. King alleges the bank hounded her with “numerous harassing calls” using an automatic telephone dialing system to collect a debt (see 2309070001). King filed her lawsuit Aug. 4 in state court before the bank removed it to federal court Sept. 6. BMO completed its Bank of the West acquisition from BNP Paribas July 21. The stipulation said BMO was "sued erroneously" as Bank of the West.

New England Health Group made telemarketing calls to residential numbers listed on the national do not call registry in violation of the prohibitions in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Kristy Beckwith alleged in a class action Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-12689) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston. Beckwith listed her number on the DNC registry July 25, yet she received at least six telemarketing calls from New England Health Group throughout the months of July, August and September, said her complaint. All the calls were from the same caller ID, 605-608-8724, and the ones Beckwith answered “all followed a similar telemarketing script” in promoting New England Health Group’s insurance plans, it said. Beckwith and the other call recipients “were harmed by these calls,” said her class action. “They were temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones because the phone line was tied up during the telemarketing calls and their privacy was improperly invaded,” it said. The calls injured Beckwith and the other call recipients “because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying” and were “a nuisance,” it said. The calls also “destroyed” the recipients’ “solitude,” it said.

Plaintiff Daniel Burton and defendant Paychex agreed that claims asserted on behalf of a putative class in Burton’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action are dismissed without prejudice, and claims asserted in his individual capacity are dismissed with prejudice, said their joint stipulation of dismissal Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-00734) in U.S. District Court for Western New York in Buffalo. Burton’s July class action alleged a number belonging to Paychex called his phone numerous times between February and July, though his number was listed on the national do not call registry (see 2307250048). Each party will bear its own court costs and attorneys' fees, said the stipulation.

Spectrum denies all the allegations in plaintiff Joshua Cacho’s Sept. 18 first amended complaint “that are inconsistent with the express terms” of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said Spectrum’s answer Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-00347) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in El Paso. Cacho alleged Spectrum hounded him with at least 222 robocalls in the past year, ostensibly to warn him, via prerecorded messages, that his cable equipment was outdated and would need to be replaced, but actually they were to sell him a new mobile plan and an iPhone 14 Pro Max (see 2309150002). His complaint was unusual in that it listed all 222 calls he alleges to have received. As a subscriber of Spectrum services, Cacho’s claims may be subject to the terms and conditions of Spectrum’s service, including “a valid and binding arbitration provision,” said Spectrum’s answer. The company “reserves the right to elect arbitration,” it said. Spectrum denies making the calls at issue, and didn’t use an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice to contact Cacho, who “suffered no concrete injury,” it said. Any of Cacho’s claims for treble damages under the TCPA are barred because Spectrum didn’t “engage in knowing or willful misconduct,” said its answer. The company didn’t “directly make the calls at issue,” and the calls, if made, “were contrary to Spectrum’s contract and the marketing rules covering the third parties that may have made the calls,” it said. Spectrum maintains “significant practices” to comply with federal, state and internal do not call lists, plus “other safeguards” to ensure compliance with the TCPA “and other legal and regulatory requirements,” it said. Spectrum also requires vendors that it works with to comply with federal, state and internal DNC lists, it said. The conduct at issue in Cacho’s complaint “is contrary to Spectrum’s contract with and rules applying to the entity that allegedly made the calls on Spectrum’s behalf,” it said.

Plaintiff April Roughton and defendant Newsmax have reached a settlement on Roughton’s individual Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim, said her notice of settlement Tuesday (docket 9:23-cv-80969) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. Roughton anticipates filing a dismissal with prejudice for her individual claim within 60 days, and without prejudice “as to any claims of the proposed class,” it said. Roughton alleged 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).