Attorneys for plaintiff Jamil Hindi and defendant furniture chain Modani are to file a joint scheduling report within 35 days of Modani’s “first responsive pleading” in Hindi’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2211280035), said an order signed Thursday (docket 0:22-cv-62219) by U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. They must confer within 15 days of Modani’s first responsive pleading “to consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case,” the order said. Hindi’s class action alleges Modani inundated Floridians with 50 different unwanted text-message solicitations since July 1, including a November bombardment keyed to Black Friday promotions.

A federal judge declined to pause a Florida Telephone Solicitation Act case Wednesday, despite plaintiff Tyler DeSouza and defendant AeroCare expressing hope about mediation (see 2211280013). U.S. District Court of Middle Florida Judge Roy Dalton in Orlando denied parties’ motion for stay in case 6:22-cv-01047-RBD-LHP. “While the Court encourages mediation, it will not delay the docket in the meantime,” he wrote.

U.S. District Judge Robert Chatigny for Connecticut in New Haven entered an electronic order Thursday (docket 3:22-cv-01340) granting Hallmark Cards’ consent motion for an extension to Jan. 18 to answer the Oct. 25 class action claiming it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2210260054). Bridgeport consumer James Williams contends in his complaint that Hallmark operates an aggressive telemarketing campaign in which it repeatedly sends text messages to phone numbers listed on the national do-not-call registry.

Lawyers for Catherine Migliano and Parler are to file a joint scheduling report by Dec. 12 on Migliano’s allegations the right-leaning social media platform violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, said an order signed Tuesday (docket 0:22-cv-61805) by U.S. District Judge Roy Altman for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Migliano alleges Parler inundated her with telemarketing text messages promoting the sale of Donald Trump non-fungible tokens in violation of both statutes (see 2210280002). Parler subsequently responded that Migliano agreed when she signed up for the platform to resolve all disputes through arbitration or to litigate her complaint in U.S. District Court for Nevada (see 2211180050). Parler also moved for dismissal for Migliano’s failure to state a claim.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated a lower court’s dismissal of a TCPA case and remanded it over the question of whether a single phone call is a concrete injury that gives a plaintiff standing, said the panel's opinion Tuesday (docket 21-14045). “Once the standing issue is resolved, the district court may then reissue its decision (or rule otherwise as it seems fit), and an appeal may again follow,” said the opinion from Circuit Judges Elizabeth Branch and Britt Grant, and U.S. District Judge Harvey Schlesinger. The case concerns multiple calls to the individual plaintiffs from a dialing system owned by Ocwen Loan Servicing, and was dismissed by the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida after the lower court concluded Ocwen’s system wasn’t an automated dialing system under the TCPA. The plaintiffs appealed, but their complaint doesn’t specify how many calls the plaintiffs received. That’s important because prior 11th circuit decisions said more than one call is sufficient to confer standing, but not whether a single call is enough, the opinion said. “For any of these plaintiffs, the ‘exact number of calls’ they received could be zero, one, or more than one,” said the opinion. “Each of these scenarios would potentially present a different resolution to the standing issue.”

U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia Otazo-Reyes for Southern Florida in Miami denied four discovery requests from plaintiff Maria Fernanda Soto Leigue to compel defendant Keiser University to produce documents in her Florida Telephone Solicitation Act class action, said an order signed Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-22307). The denials were without prejudice “to any future rulings on similar discovery requests that are propounded in this litigation,” said the order. The class action alleges that due to its high student turnover rate, which ranks in the top 10 among private U.S. universities, Keiser is forced to implement aggressive telemarketing strategies to recruit new students so it can ultimately generate revenue, and that caused it to run afoul of the FTSA (see 2211070038).

U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino for Southern California in San Diego granted a joint motion extending by 30 days to Dec. 23 Wells Fargo Bank’s deadline for responding to plaintiff Christopher Atanasoff’s Nov. 1 complaint that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said an order she signed Monday (docket 3:22-cv-01698). Good cause exists for extending the deadline so Wells Fargo can evaluate Atanasoff’s claims, respond to early settlement discussions and investigate the facts of the case, said the order. Atanasoff alleges the bank phoned him more than 60 times to collect an old credit card debt after receiving a cease and desist from his lawyer July 29 (see 2211210012).

U.S. District Judge Roy Altman for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale denied Parler’s motion to stay discovery in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint it’s defending (see 2211250001) until its Nov. 23 motion to compel arbitration, to transfer the venue to U.S. District Court for Nevada, or to dismiss the case is resolved, said his paperless order Monday (docket 0:22-cv-61805). He cited case law that frowns on delaying or prolonging discovery because it can create case management problems that cause unnecessary litigation expenses. Parler failed to establish that staying discovery is warranted, said Altman. Its sole justification for requesting a stay “is that its pending motion to dismiss, compel arbitration, and transfer venue might eliminate the need for discovery,” he said. “But that could be said about nearly all motions to dismiss.” Parler has done nothing to establish a "specific showing of prejudice or burdensomeness," he said. It hasn't, for example, “pointed to extraordinary costs or to a long-awaited ruling on a dispositive motion or to a particularly dubious complaint,” he said. Parler “has not established that a stay would be reasonable or that there is good cause for the request in this case,” he said.

Furniture chain Modani inundated Floridians with 50 different unwanted text-message solicitations since July 1, including a bombardment during November keyed to Black Friday promotions, alleged a class action Monday in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale that asserts claims in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Plaintiff Jamil Hindi revoked any type of consent or permission Modani may have had to contact him when he replied “Stop” to Modani’s text message Aug. 2, said the complaint. Modani received the stop request because it confirmed that Hindi was unsubscribed through an automated response, it said. Modani nevertheless continued sending Hindi text solicitations through Black Friday, it said. The complaint seeks treble damages for “knowing and/or willful” violations of both statutes. It also demands that Modani “take affirmative steps to preserve all records, lists, electronic databases or other itemizations associated with the allegations.” Modani didn’t answer emailed queries seeking comment.

Parties sought stay in a Florida Telephone Solicitation Act case until after mediation scheduled for Jan. 4. Plaintiff Tyler DeSouza and defendant AeroCare hope “that mediation will be fruitful and result in the resolution of this matter, obviating the need for a hearing and ruling on the Motion to Dismiss,” they said in a joint motion posted Wednesday in case 6:22-cv-01047-RBD-LHP at the U.S. District Court for Middle Florida. If parties can’t resolve their differences, they will “promptly inform” the court and submit a joint scheduled by Jan. 13, they said. AeroCare sought to dismiss because it says Florida’s mini Telephone Consumer Protection Act is unconstitutional (see 2210260018).