(1) What constitutes "capacity" as the term is used in the TCPA; and

(2) The level of human intervention necessary to remove a call ...

Plaintiff filed suit, placing at issue a single call to his cell phone using an ATDS, and attempting to represent a class of similarly situated individuals. The only allegation in the Complaint arguably relating to injury was a claim that the cell phone Defendants called was "assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls."

Noting this phrasing "mimics the language of the TCPA," and assuming for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff alleged he ...

Plaintiff filed a TCPA class action lawsuit based on a single telephone call regarding the sale of medical equipment, claiming harm to herself and the class in the form of "multiple involuntary telephone and electrical charges, the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, and violations of their statutory rights." Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules ...

Plaintiff dental practice filed a class action lawsuit relating to a fax it received, contending that the fax violated the TCPA. Defendant made a settlement offer of $3,005 plus costs, which Plaintiff rejected. The next day, Defendant moved to deposit $3,600 with the Court under Rule 67, taking the position that $3,600 exceeded what Plaintiff could ever hope to recover because it assumed maximum liability: (1) $3,005 for two willful violations of the TCPA- one for sending the unwanted fax, and one for failing ...

Defendant called Plaintiff believing it was contacting a third party to collect debt on behalf of another. Plaintiff filed suit, asserting various claims including a claim for violation of the TCPA. The TCPA makes it unlawful to, among other things, initiate calls using any Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) or artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service. At issue was whether a LiveVox Human Call Initiator (HCI) is ...

In two recently published cases, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida stayed proceedings pending the outcome of ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, which challenges the FCC's July 10, 2015, Declaratory Ruling. The basis for both Motions to Stay was the fact that the ACA appeal bears directly on the what constitutes an Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS). As the Court in ...

Husband and wife Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant regarding calls allegedly made to Plaintiffs' cell phones to collect debt owed on the husband's account after Plaintiffs purportedly revoked consent to be contacted. Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, contending that Plaintiffs' claims had to be arbitrated on an individual, non-class basis. At issue were four credit card accounts, three of which belonged to the husband, one of which belonged to the wife and all of which ...

At issue before the Court was Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and Defendant's second motion to strike class definition as a fail-safe class. Noting that "[t]he fail-safe appellation is simply a way of labeling the obvious problems that exist when the class itself is defined in a way that precludes membership unless the liability of defendant is established," the Court concluded that the following class definition was an impermissible fail-safe class:

All Persons within the United States who received ...

Plaintiff operates a service called "Nomorobo" designed to help consumers avoid incoming robocalls by analyzing calls made to its "honeypot" numbers using a specialized algorithm enabling it to distinguish between auto and manual dialed calls. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that it received 12,240 robocalls between March 2014, and February, 2016, answering 747 of them. Plaintiff claimed to incur a $0.0075 charge for all calls answered ...

After granting summary judgment for lack of standing against a plaintiff who bought multiple cell phones and numbers for purposes of filing TCPA lawsuits, the Court was faced with a Motion to Amend Judgment wherein Plaintiff argued that dismissal for lack of standing mandated remand to state court for adjudication. At issue was whether a lack of prudential standing results in a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Citing extensively from Hvizdak v. Citizens Bank of Pa., No. 14-cv-406 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2015), the ...