The New York Tribeca Group (NYTG), a commercial loan company, runs “an aggressive cold-calling telemarketing campaign” that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged plaintiff Porsche Stegall’s class action Friday (docket 1:23-cv-02862) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. NYTG repeatedly sends text messages and places phone calls to numbers listed on the national do not call registry “and over the messaged party’s objections,” said the Aurora, Illinois, resident's complaint. Stegall “has never done any business with NYTG,” nor did she ever give the company her phone number or consent to contact her, it said. Stegall was “damaged” by NYTG’s “unconsented” text messages and calls, it said. In addition to using up her data plan, phone storage and battery life, Stegall’s privacy was “wrongfully invaded,” and she has become “understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of repeated, unwanted text messages and calls,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt for Southern Texas in Houston signed an order Wednesday (docket 4:23-cv-01630) setting an Oct. 30 initial pretrial and scheduling telephone conference in plaintiff Brandon Luna’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against telecom services provider Secure IP Telecom and its America Voice brand (see 2305030002). Luna alleges the defendant willfully and knowingly violates the TCPA by using prerecorded messages to advertise and market its goods and services to individuals’ cellphone numbers without first obtaining their required express written consent.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Major for Southern California in San Diego signed an order Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01698) confirming plaintiff Christopher Atanasoff’s voluntary dismissal of his Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Wells Fargo Bank (see 2211210012). She ordered Atanasoff to file his voluntary dismissal of the case or a stipulation for dismissal by June 22. Atanasoff and Wells Fargo agreed in January to refer Atanasoff’s TCPA dispute to binding arbitration (see 2301100032). He had alleged Wells Fargo phoned him more than 60 times to collect an old credit card debt, even after receiving a cease and desist from his lawyer.

U.S. District Judge Chad Bryan for Middle Alabama in Montgomery ordered pro se plaintiff Lee Cunningham to show cause by May 16 why Southern Power’s motion to dismiss his Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint or for summary judgment in Southern Power’s favor shouldn’t be granted, said his signed order Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-00621). Southern Power’s reply brief is due seven days after Cunningham files his response. Southern Power’s motion to dismiss said Cunningham’s complaint was “impermissibly frivolous” because he in fact knows that Southern Power wasn't the party that inundated him with debt collection calls, but he’s suing the wholesale power company anyway (see 2304280041). Bryan’s order admonished Cunningham that in responding, he shouldn’t rely on “his unsworn pleadings.” He must additionally submit “sworn/verified statements made under penalty of perjury,” plus any other evidentiary materials that would support his TCPA claims against Southern Power, said his order. Bryan warned Cunningham that he risks monetary or non-monetary sanctions if he violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its safeguards against pleadings for an improper purpose or those that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.

Defendant Secure IP Telecom, via its America Voice brand, uses prerecorded messages to advertise and market its goods and services to individuals’ cellphone numbers without first obtaining their required express written consent, alleged Brazoria County, Texas, resident Brandon Luna in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-01630) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston. The defendant knew that it didn’t have consent to make these calls, “and knew or should have known that it was using prerecorded messages,” said the complaint. “The violations were therefore willful or knowing,” it said. Luna and members of his putative class were harmed and each is entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages for each violation, it said. Each also is entitled to an injunction against future calls, it said.

U.S. District Judge Paul Byron for Middle Florida in Orlando ordered Telephone Consumer Protection Act defendant IMCMV Holdings, parent company of Margaritaville restaurants, to show cause within 14 days why it failed to comply with his Feb. 9 procedural order directing counsel to file a certificate of interested persons within two weeks of an appearance in the case. Failure to comply with the show cause order “may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions without further notice,” said Byron’s signed order Monday (docket 6:23-cv-00223). Plaintiff Racheal Paul alleges she listed her cellphone number on the national do not call registry in April 2014, yet she received two text solicitations Jan. 29 offering a free appetizer if she visited a Margaritaville restaurant (see 2303210003).

Space Coast Credit Union denies it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said its answer Monday (docket 0:23-cv-60659) to plaintiff Renate Moore’s April 6 class action in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Moore alleges Space Coast “routinely violated” the TCPA by inundating her with debt collection calls for a debit card account that wasn’t hers (see 2304070001). Space Coast admits it placed at least three calls to Moore’s cellphone but denies her TCPA allegations, said its answer. It also admits Moore informed the credit union it was calling the wrong number and she had no business with Space Coast, but again denies any TCPA wrongdoing, it said. Moore and her putative class members aren’t entitled to recover damages under their claims for relief because she lacks standing, said the credit union’s answer. She also suffered “no actual harm as a result of the allegations,” it said. Moore and the putative class members’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any violation by Space Coast “was unintentional and resulted from a good faith error notwithstanding the fact that Space Coast maintains procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error,” it said.

The parties in plaintiff Matilde Cowen’s complaint alleging Kohl’s violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by inundating her with debt collection calls (see 2302030043) propose Aug. 10, 2024, as a trial date and estimate a trial would last no more than four days, said their joint status report Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00199) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Their proposed joint discovery plan sets a Feb. 1 deadline for completing fact discovery, said the report. The parties believe settlement “is ultimately likely,” but no settlement has been reached during settlement discussions, it said. Cowen's complaint alleges Kohl's called her more than 150 times in total, after receiving written notice from her lawyers revoking any prior consent to call. Kohl's denies any wrongdoing, and asserts the TCPA doesn't allow revoking consent after the fact (see 2303300005).

Plaintiff Antionette Woodard can’t establish that U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago has personal jurisdiction over her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim against Humana, said Humana’s memorandum Monday (docket 1:23-cv-00979) in support of her motion to dismiss. Humana telegraphed the motion in an April 27 joint status report with Woodward’s counsel (see 2304280006). Woodard alleges Humana is vicariously liable for the incessant insurance solicitation calls its third-party telemarketing vendor, Healthhubb, made on Humana's behalf to her cellphone, though her number was listed on the national do not call registry for months. Woodward’s attempt to allege specific jurisdiction fails “in the face of two critical facts,” said the memorandum. Humana didn’t place the calls at issue “and is therefore not subject to direct liability for those calls,” it said. Humana also didn’t control, authorize or even know of the actions of the entity that allegedly did, Healthubb, and thus can’t be “vicariously liable for Healthubb’s actions,” it said. Woodward’s complaint acknowledges Humana didn’t make the calls, it said. As for the second fact, Woodward speculates in “a series of conclusory allegations” that Humana and Healthubb are business partners and that Healthubb “acted at the behest of Humana when it placed the alleged calls,” it said. But those “suppositions” are wrong, it said. Humana did an internal investigation after being served with Woodard’s lawsuit “to determine whether it has any relationship” with Healthubb, said a declaration by Sarah Elmer, Humana’s market vice president. “That investigation concluded that Humana has never paid Healthubb for leads or call transfers and has never authorized Healthubb to market or otherwise purport to sell Humana products,” it said.

Na'eem Betz’s phone number was listed on national do not call registry for at least a month before unlawful solicitations began from Comcast Cable, alleged the Washington, D.C., plaintiff's April 24 Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint (docket 1:23-cv-01177) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Comcast kept calling Betz’s number even after it agreed to add his number to its internal do not call list, the complaint alleged. The “incessant” calls were “bothersome, disruptive and frustrating,” it said.