Goldman Sachs Bank inundated plaintiff Angela Talburt with 105 debt collection calls after receiving two certified notices that she was represented by counsel and had revoked her consent to be contacted by an artificial or prerecorded voice, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Thursday (docket 5:23-cv-00932) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. The California resident also alleges violations of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors “from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices,” it said. Talburt’s account was for an unsecured credit card, and she was making regular monthly payments on the account for several years before she became financially unable to keep up, it said. The bank began contacting her in July to inquire about the status of the account and to collect on the payments that were no longer being made, it said. “Undeterred even after receiving two certified notices” from her lawyer, the bank continued to contact her daily, it said. The actual call volume “may be much higher” than the 105 quoted, as the bank’s unlawful behavior “caused her to experience a significant amount of anxiety and stress,” it said. Goldman Sachs Bank didn’t comment Friday.

Social Security disability law firm Heard & Smith, through telemarketer Digital Media Services, made four unsolicited prerecorded calls to a Florida woman in February, despite her listing on the national do not call registry, alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00237) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Jacksonville. Plaintiff Margaret Martinez instructed her attorney to send a letter to the law firm after receiving three prerecorded calls Feb. 2 marketing the disability services of Heard & Smith; the law firm responded that DMS made the robocalls, the complaint said. A fourth call, with the same prerecorded message, was placed to Martinez four days after the first, with a robot caller also identifying itself as a disability specialist for Heard & Smith, the complaint said. Heard & Smith should have known DMS was violating the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act (TCPA) by placing prerecorded voice calls to cellular phones without the recipient’s prior consent, the plaintiff said. DMS has been named as a defendant in at least five TCPA lawsuits since 2020, the complaint said. In addition to the TCPA, the complaint alleges Smith & Heard and DMS violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Martinez seeks an injunction against the defendants from calling phone numbers advertising their goods or services, “except for emergency purposes,” using a prerecorded message, plus statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or FTSA and $1,500 for each willful violation.

The Republican Committee of Chester County, Pennsylvania, seeks to dismiss plaintiff Mark Fidanza’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2212280028) for failure to state a claim, said its motion Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-05185) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Fidanza’s complaint asserts the committee inundated him with 17 text message solicitations Oct. 19, in the run-up to the Nov. 8 midterm elections, including 10 separate text messages to his cellphone in less than a single hour. The committee doesn’t deny it hired a third-party vendor, Buzz360, to send political messages that Fidanza received, but it didn’t “intend” that the messages “would be delivered to any of the intended recipients in the manner Fidanza alleges,” said its motion. That Fidanza received “multiple, repetitive identical texts” wasn't planned by the committee, nor was it “a violation of the law,” it said. Though it’s possible Fidanza’s number “was incorrectly on a list that was placed into the Buzz360 platform, this is not sufficient to amount to a violation of TCPA,” it said. “At best, Fidanza has established that his single number was texted repeatedly on two separate days,” said the committee. But he hasn’t “averred with any particularity” that the equipment used “had the capacity to and did generate random or sequential numbers for automatic texting,” as would have been unlawful under the TCPA, it said.

When plaintiff Shelsy Ruiz experienced financial hardship in January 2022, Wells Fargo Bank began bombarding the San Diego County resident with debt-collection calls to her cellphone using a recorded voice or automatic telephone dialing system, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00387) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Court records show it’s the fourth known TCPA claim filed against Wells Fargo since Nov. 1 by the same lawyer, Ahren Tiller of the BLC Law Center in San Diego. Through the cease and desist letter Tiller sent to Wells Fargo at its corporate headquarters on Ruiz’s behalf May 25, the plaintiff “revoked any alleged consent” for the banks or its representatives to call her on her cellphone via the use of an ATDS or recorded voice, or by text message, it said. Wells Fargo didn’t comment.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce denied defendant loanDepot’s motions to strike plaintiff Zachary Sawicki’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class allegations and to stay or bifurcate discovery (see 2302270042), said her paperless order Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-14425). To promote “an orderly resolution of this case,” loanDepot, by March 10, may refile the motions to strike and to stay or bifurcate discovery as “two consolidated motions,” said her order.

Plaintiff Jean Zoulek failed to plead facts that could allow the court to “plausibly infer” Gannett’s A Marketing Resource (AMR) company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said a memorandum Monday (docket 2:22-cv-01464) in support of Gannett's motion to dismiss. The complaint doesn't allege Gannett placed any calls to Zoulek, but it asserts the company should be held “vicariously liable” for AMR’s alleged calls, said the memorandum in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. AMR can't plead a basis to show vicarious liability because it was “simply acting as a contractor under an arm’s-length agreement, and not as Gannett’s agent,” said the memo. Zoulek was a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel subscriber until June, when she canceled her subscription. She then began receiving calls from AMR, despite being on the national do not call registry, alleged her complaint, saying AMR made calls to her after she made an internal do-not-call request. The memorandum cited a master services agreement between Gannett and AMR, asserting AMR is an independent contractor, “free from the direction or control of its publisher." Gannett provides a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of prior residential subscribers but “does not mandate” or control how AMR is permitted to contact identified individuals, it said.

Defendant Hallmark Cards seeks an order compelling plaintiff James Williams’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims to individual arbitration (see 2210260054), or alternatively to strike his class allegations, said Hallmark’s motion Friday (docket 3:22-cv-01340). Williams voluntarily enrolled in Hallmark’s Crown Rewards loyalty program and agreed to the arbitration agreement, the company said in U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven. Williams made numerous purchases at Hallmark stores, “and consented to receive the very text messages that form the basis of his claim,” it said. Williams' claim in New Haven federal court is “procedurally improper because, at the time he enrolled to receive text messages from Hallmark, he also agreed to a mandatory and binding arbitration provision that explicitly applies to the very claim he asserts here,” it said. In seeking alternatively to strike Williams’ class allegations, Hallmark argues he's “not a member of the class he seeks to represent because he consented to receive text messages from Hallmark,” it said. Though Williams claims otherwise, and alleges he continued to receive text messages after he texted “Stop,” Hallmark’s records “contradict these allegations,” it said. Hallmark isn’t asking the court to resolve these factual disputes on this motion, but rather to strike the class allegations, it said. At a minimum, Williams “will be the subject of unique defenses that preclude his ability to represent a class in this action and will be unable to satisfy Rule 23’s predominance requirement,” it said.

Defendant loanDepot answered plaintiff Zachary Sawicki’s allegations it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (see 2301170005) with a series of motions Friday to dismiss his complaint, to strike his class allegations, to stay discovery and to bifurcate discovery. Sawicki doesn’t allege he used his number for residential purposes and he failed to allege he personally listed his number on the national do not call registry, said the motion to dismiss (docket 2:22-cv-14425) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. Sawicki can’t satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 involving the alleged classes “because the proposed classes, which are based on imprecise and vague criteria, are facially deficient and uncertifiable,” said its motion to strike his class allegations. In its motion to stay discovery, loanDepot argued that resolution of the motions to dismiss and to strike the class allegations “will dispose of or substantially narrow the scope of claims in this action.” Its motion to bifurcate discovery said the court should do discovery in three phases to “conserve party and judicial resources,” and more effectively manage the litigation. Phase one would be discovery into Sawicki’s individual claims, while the second would be discovery “into the appropriateness of class certification” if his claims proceed, it said. If a class is ultimately certified, the third phase would be merits discovery for the class, it said.

Westminster, Colorado, telemarketer Bradley Lead Group violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing multiple calls over a 12-month period to a consumer on the national do not call registry, alleged a Sunday privacy class action in U.S. District Court in Denver (docket 1:23-cv-00517). Kansas resident Crystal Potter, on the registry since 2008, received five calls from the company October 2021-October 2022 offering her credit report services for a fee in exchange for negotiating or canceling debt, said the complaint, alleging Potter was harmed by the invasion of her privacy. Potter seeks a declaration that Bradley Lead Group violated the TCPA, damages as allowed by law and injunctive relief, prohibiting the telemarketing company from calling numbers on the registry.

Plaintiff Christa Simmons resolved her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Procter & Gamble “on an individual, non-class basis,” said her notice of settlement Thursday (docket 0:22-cv-61956) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. “The parties are now in the process of finalizing the terms of the settlement,” it said. She asked the court to vacate all pending deadlines, and allow the parties 30 days to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, it said. Simmons’ Oct. 20 class action alleged P&G engaged in unsolicited text messaging to promote its Oral-B brand to consumers without their prior express written consent (see 2210210057). Her complaint also accused P&G of Florida Telephone Solicitation Act wrongdoing.