The U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago should dismiss plaintiff Porsche Stegall’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint in its entirety because she still hasn’t “adequately alleged” a residential phone number was at issue in the commercial loan solicitation calls she claims to have received from New York Tribeca Group (NYTG) (see 2309190002), said the defendant’s reply Monday (docket 1:23-cv-02862) in support of its motion. Stegall’s amended complaint still alleged her number was residential but added the claim she used the number for “personal purposes,” said NYTG’s reply. Courts have said allegations like personal purposes don’t equate to residential use, and they’re “factually insufficient to state a claim,” it said. Dismissal in this case “should be with prejudice,” said NYTG’s reply. Plaintiff Stegall didn’t request leave to amend, nor does she indicate there’s “anything else she can allege,” it said. She already was given one opportunity to amend “with the benefit of knowing what arguments NYTG would pursue” in its motion to dismiss, it said.

The U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit should deny plaintiff Michael Dahdah’s motion for leave to amend his dismissed Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against Rocket Mortgage as “premature,” pending the court’s resolution of Rocket’s motion to compel Dahdah’s claims to arbitration (see 2309150060), said Rocket’s opposition Monday (docket 4:22-cv-11863). Because motions to compel arbitration “raise threshold questions about whether the court is the proper forum to resolve the dispute, the resolution of such motions must precede the resolution of motions to dismiss raising merits issues,” said Rocket. The court should vacate its dismissal order and take up the motion to compel arbitration “before reaching the Rule 12(b)(6) issues,” it said. If the court were to deny the motion to compel, “it would be appropriate to take up the Rule 12(b)(6) issues at that time, including by reinstating the dismissal order and by considering whether to grant leave to amend,” said Rocket.

LoanDepot “incessantly” placed telemarketing calls to the cellphone of plaintiff Kristi Hull despite not having the “appropriate form of consent” to call her, and notwithstanding that her number was listed on the national do not call registry since August 2012, alleged Hull’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Monday (docket 1:23-cv-02567) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. She brought the case against loanDepot “to protect her privacy rights, namely the right to be left alone from unwanted telemarketing phone calls,” said her complaint. Nearly 38 billion robocalls were placed in the U.S. in the first eight months of 2023 alone, said the complaint, citing YouMail’s Robocall Index. The TCPA’s private right of enforcement “is critical to stopping the proliferation of these unwanted telemarketing calls,” it said, suggesting the FCC isn’t the most effective deterrent. Citing media reports, the complaint said the FCC levied more than $200 million in civil penalties against robocalling telemarketers between 2015 and 2018, but it collected less than $7,000. Beginning around June 6, and continuing at least through July 3, Hull estimates she received at least 50 prerecorded voice calls on her phone from loanDepot, said her complaint. The calls were for the purpose of requesting “just a few pieces of critical information necessary” to complete Hull’s recent mortgage refinance application, it said. But Hull never submitted a mortgage refinance application, or any type of loan application, to loanDepot, it said. She believes the calls really “were merely a way to solicit business” from her, said the complaint. On information and belief, discovery may reveal that loanDepot placed more than 50 calls to Hull’s phone, and did so without her “prior express written consent, or any form of consent,” it said. Hull “never had a prior existing business relationship” with loanDepot “before receiving these incessant and unwanted calls,” it said. LoanDepot “knew or had reason to know” Hull’s number was listed on the national DNC registry, “yet incessantly called her” anyway, it said. The calls were “harassing, irritating, invasive and annoying,” it said. She seeks treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA. Court records show Hull’s lawsuit is the 28th TCPA action filed against loanDepot since May 2014.

XCast’s counterclaim should be stricken or dismissed because it duplicates the defendant’s affirmative defenses, said DOJ in a Monday reply brief (docket 2:23-cv-03646) in support of its motion to strike or dismiss in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The counterclaim also wouldn’t serve the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act, said the brief. XCast’s opposition brief “complains at length” that the FTC's complaint makes unfounded and “off base” allegations of fact, but those arguments will be resolved in deciding DOJ’s claim and don’t warrant a second counterclaim, the brief said. XCast’s opposition brief asserts the FTC is acting outside the scope of its authority and expertise, failed to do a sufficient investigation and to provide XCast with adequate pre-suit notice of its claims. Striking is “particularly warranted” because -- as DOJ has pointed out and XCast has not disputed -- "allowing the redundant counterclaim to proceed would prejudice Plaintiff by requiring it to draft duplicative pleadings, discovery, and motions,” said the brief. The DOJ’s May lawsuit alleges VoIP provider XCast transmitted “billions” of illegal robocalls since 2018 that sellers and telemarketers placed to American consumers in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

The Republican Committee of Chester County, Pennsylvania, seeks to hold Twilio financially responsible for any judgment arising from RCCC’s own alleged transmission of unwanted and unwelcome election-related text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2309120015), said Twilio’s memorandum of law Friday (docket 2:22-cv-05185) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in support of its motion to dismiss the RCCC’s third-party complaint. Twilio is a third-party vendor with which RCCC “had no legal or contractual relationship,” said its memorandum. There’s “tellingly” no “reference to or mention of Twilio” in plaintiff Mark Fidanza’s initial complaint against RCCC, nor in any of Fidanza’s subsequent amendments, nor in the answers of RCCC and Buzz360 that followed, said Twilio. That’s because Twilio “has done nothing wrong,” it said. RCCC nevertheless has chosen to proceed against Twilio “based on vague speculation alone,” it said. RCCC time and again “fails to plead concrete factual allegations that could help Twilio understand what RCCC believes Twilio did wrong or connect any of its vague speculation to a colorable theory of legal liability,” it said. RCCC still has not stated a claim, and its third-party complaint against Twilio must be dismissed, said the memorandum.

Allstate engages with third-party agents to place outbound telemarketing calls to individuals on its behalf, and is liable for the unlawful actions of those agents, alleged Montfort, Wisconsin, resident Alex Riemenapp in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00670) in U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin in Madison. Allstate’s agents are vendors who are “essential to the success of its telemarketing campaigns,” said Riemenapp’s complaint. Riemenapp concedes he visited Allstate’s website in early 2022 because he was in the market for insurance products, but “at no point in time” did he enter into a contract with Allstate or otherwise purchase any of its insurance products or services, said the complaint. Riemenapp also denies he gave Allstate his cellphone number or otherwise consented to receiving Allstate’s solicitation calls, it said. He 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, said his complaint. “Concerned” and “infuriated” with Allstate’s “invasive marketing practices,” Riemenapp hired counsel to “vindicate his rights,” it said. He seeks injunctive relief enjoining Allstate “from placing or causing to place further violating calls to consumers,” plus treble damages of $1,500 per violation for Allstate’s knowing and willful TCPA wrongdoing. Court records show Riemenapp’s case is the 16th TCPA action filed against Allstate since June 2019.

Plaintiff George Morris and his putative class members are barred from asserting their Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Charter Communications in the Northern District of Texas “to the extent their claims are subject to a binding arbitration agreement” and an agreement to arbitrate their disputes on an individual, non-class basis, said Charter’s answer Friday (docket 3:23-cv-01741), citing 30 affirmative defenses to deny the TCPA claims. Morris’ Aug. 4 class action alleges Charter calls consumers nationally to promote its Spectrum TV and internet bundles, using prerecorded messages to people who didn’t provide their prior express written consent to receive them, or whose numbers are listed on the national do not call registry (see 2308040053). Any claim for treble damages or penalties under the TCPA is barred because Charter didn’t engage “in knowing or willful misconduct,” said its answer. Charter “only places calls to numbers of persons who consent to such calls,” it said. Morris and the putative class members lack standing to bring the claims alleged in the complaint, because any harm allegedly caused by the calls at issue “is not fairly traceable to any violation allegedly committed,” it said.

Plaintiff Kent McCoy of Russellville, Arkansas, seeks injunctive relief and treble damages against Millennia Tax Relief and its principals, Robert Kim and Calen Meza, for their willful and knowing violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said McCoy’s class action Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-00898) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Arkansas in Little Rock. The defendants began placing autodialed and prerecorded telemarketing calls to McCoy’s cellphone around April 18 to a number he had listed on the national do not call registry in November 2006, and did so for the purposes of selling him employee retention credit (ERC) tax services, said his complaint. It accuses Millennia, Kim and Meza of a civil conspiracy to commit TCPA wrongdoing, alleging they agreed among themselves to violate the TCPA and injure McCoy and his class members “by conducting an illegal robocalling campaign meant to advertise their ERC-related business services.” The defendants “created websites for themselves and their alias companies,” and directed and approved “a recorded message to be played to unsuspecting call recipients,” said the class action. They also supervised the calls, and paid for the services, “achieving the outcome of generating awareness of their business offerings,” it said. The defendants “met in person and/or communicated by phone and email to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy,” it said. McCoy and his class members “were injured by the conspiracy in the form of the annoyance, burden, time, and expense of dealing with the unwanted, illegal robocalls,” it said.

Regent University “routinely violates” the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an artificial or prerecorded voice to place nonemergency telemarketing calls to cellphone numbers, without recipients’ prior express consent and often to wrong or reassigned numbers, alleged plaintiff Maxx Lyman’s class action Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00480) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Norfolk. Before filing the lawsuit, Lyman’s counsel contacted Regent University, a private Christian school in Virginia Beach, about the calls at issue, said the complaint. The school didn’t deny placing calls to Lyman, and didn’t contend it had consent to contact him, it said. Regent “willfully and knowingly” violated the TCPA, it said. Due to those violations, Lyman and the members of the class “are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial,” it said.

Accuquote, an insurance leads company, hired vendor Digital Media Solutions to place unsolicited telemarketing calls to Virginia phone numbers listed on the national do not call registry, alleged a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-02171) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. In so doing, Accuquote and DMS also violated provisions of the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act, it said. Because telemarketing campaigns “generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse,” Virginia resident John Bryant brings his action “on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls” from or on behalf of Accuquote and DMS, it said. Bryant didn’t give Accuquote or DMS his prior express written consent to receive the calls, said the complaint. Bryant and all members of the class have been harmed by the acts of the defendants “because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls,” it said. The calls occupied their cellphone lines, “rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication,” it said.