Plaintiff Jordan Copeland voluntarily dismissed without prejudice all Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Parler, effectively ending his two-month-long class-action lawsuit against the right-leaning social media platform, said a notice Monday (docket 3:22cv21243) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Pensacola. His dismissal came a week after the court granted Parler’s motion to stay discovery in the case, pending the outcome of its motions to compel Copeland to arbitration or to transfer the case to U.S. District Court for Nevada.

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale entered a paperless order Monday (docket 0:22-cv-61805) denying as moot Parler’s Nov. 18 motion to dismiss plaintiff Catherine Migliano’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint for failure to state a claim, in light of Migliano’s first amended complaint filed Dec. 2 and Parler’s motion Friday to dismiss that amended complaint. Migliano alleges Parler inundated her with telemarketing text messages promoting the sale of Donald Trump non-fungible tokens in violation of the TCPA (see 2210280002). Parler alleges Migliano bound herself to an arbitration agreement when she registered for and used Parler’s services (see 2212120009).

U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale signed an order Thursday (docket 0:22-cv-62219) granting Modani’s unopposed motion for a 30-day deadline extension to Jan. 19 to answer plaintiff Jamil Hindi’s complaint alleging the furniture retailer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Modani has been “diligent in gathering information since it received notice of this case,” said its Dec. 14 motion. But lawyers with Kabat Chapman “were only retained very recently” to defend Modani and need more time “to familiarize themselves with the facts and circumstances surrounding this dispute,” it said. Hindi’s class action alleges Modani inundated Floridians with 50 different unwanted text-message solicitations during the run-up to Black Friday (see 2211280035).

Citibank and its subsidiary Department Stores National Bank unlawfully tried to collect a debt owed by plaintiff Aurora Medrano by repeatedly phoning her using an automated telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleged Medrano’s complaint Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01986) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Medrano started two Citibank credit card accounts before 2020 and maintained them “in good standing” until this May when she faced financial hardship and was unable to keep up with her monthly payments, said the complaint. The debt collection calls intensified, often coming twice a day, it said. The calls continued even after Medrano hired a lawyer to send Citibank a cease and desist letter warning it to stop, it said. Citibank didn’t comment on the complaint.

None of the issues raised in the Dec. 7 order from the U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in plaintiff Jordan Copeland’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against Parler (see 2212090041) “are impediments to arbitration and in fact confirm that the case must be arbitrated,” said Parler’s reply Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-21243). The “uncontested evidence alone” is sufficient to find that Copeland agreed to Parler’s terms, including to resolve all disputes through arbitration, said the right-leaning social media platform. The screenshots that Parler provided “unambiguously show” that Copeland “was required to agree to Parler’s terms as part of registration,” it said. Copeland “does not contest” Parler’s assertions but argues only that Parler “has not met its burden of proving an agreement” because it has not produced screenshots of what Copeland “clicked through when he began to use and benefit from Parler’s services,” it said. The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Berman v. Freedom Financial Network “is non-binding authority and of little persuasive value,” said Parler. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action under the TCPA. The panel concluded that the defendants’ webpages didn't provide “reasonably conspicuous notice” of terms of service because of the small font size and format. If Berman “is persuasive at all,” it weighs in favor of Parler in compelling arbitration, said the platform. “The terms of service to which Copeland assented were conspicuously presented to him, unlike those in Berman.”

U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz for Southern Florida signed an order Monday (docket 0:22-cv-61956) scheduling a mediation conference June 14 in plaintiff Christa Simmons’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Procter & Gamble. Simmons alleges P&G engaged in unsolicited text messaging to promote its Oral-B brand to consumers (see 2210210057). The class action also alleges violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

U.S. District Judge Kent Wetherell for Northern Florida in Pensacola granted Parler’s motion to stay discovery until its motions to compel arbitration and transfer venue to Las Vegas in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act case are resolved, said an order he signed Monday (docket 3:22-cv-21243). Wetherell has recently taken a deeper “preliminary peek” at the motions, and while he will keep an open mind until the motions are fully briefed, “there is still a good chance that this case will not proceed in this Court,” said the judge. “That being the case, the Court sees no reason for the parties to expend time and money on discovery at this point.”

U.S. District Judge George Hanks for Southern Texas in Houston signed a protective order Dec. 7 (docket 4:20-cv-02021) applying to all information, documents and other materials produced during discovery in the robocall lawsuit in which eight plaintiff-states allege five robocalling defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The states and four of the five defendants asked for the protective order in a joint motion Nov. 21. The defendants signaled their intention to challenge the TCPA’s constitutionality. The states -- Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Texas -- believe the constitutional challenge would be without merit, but are prepared to sue for violations of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule as a fallback if the challenge is successful. DOJ served notice in April 2021 it was intervening in the case to defend the TCPA's constitutionality.

Despite binding herself to an arbitration agreement and a “forum selection clause” in Parler’s terms of service by registering for and using Parler’s services, plaintiff Catherine Migliano asks the court “to ignore the agreements now that she has sued Parler in derogation of them,” said the right-leaning social media platform Friday (docket 0:22-cv-61805) in reply to Migliano’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act opposition. Migliano doesn't contest that she signed up for Parler and used its services, said Parler. “She nevertheless takes the implausible position that she is not bound by any terms of service or agreements presented to her as a condition of using Parler’s products and services.” Migliano’s failure to respond to Parler’s motion to compel arbitration warrants the motion unopposed, and the motion should be granted, said Parler. Migliano responded Friday by filing a motion for leave to submit a sur-reply to Parler’s assertions. Parler submitted “inadmissible and unauthenticated screenshots” from its website in an attempt to "remedy the deficiencies” of its motion to compel arbitration, said Migliano. To make matters worse, Parler cites nothing in support of its claim that Migliano “would have encountered the website as it appears in the screenshots,” she said.

The plaintiff in the class action alleging State Farm violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act believes it's more likely than not he will amend his complaint to address various issues raised in State Farm’s motion to dismiss (see 2212050027), said a joint initial status report Friday (docket 1:22-cv-05546) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. State Farm’s motion to dismiss asserted that Gebka failed to allege “any facts to support any vicarious liability theory” that could hold State Farm liable under the TCPA for calls it didn't make, said the report. State Farm also alleges Gebka in previous litigation attributed to Allstate the originating calls alleged in the State Farm complaint, and that he “invited the balance of the calls” when he sought insurance quotes from State Farm agents. Gebka’s attorneys believe if the case is certified as a class action, a jury trial would last five to six days, said the report. State Farm contends if Gebka’s lawyers carry through with plans to certify a class involving the marketing activity of 19,000 State Farm Agents over the past four years, any trial of a certified class would be “months-long,” it said.