Hunt v. 21st Mortgage Corp., No. 2:12-cv-2697-WMA, 2013 WL 5230061 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 17, 2013) -
Pending before the court was a Motion to Compel Discovery during which the issue of what constitutes an Automatic...more
Roy v. Dell Fin. Services, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-738, 2013 WL 3678551 (M.D. Pa. July 12, 2013) -
Plaintiff, who purchased computers and did not pay debt owed, filed suit against Defendant alleging that Defendant called him...more
Plaintiff completed a credit application to purchase computers, which required her to provide a home phone number. Plaintiff listed her cell phone number but did not identify it as her cell phone number or indicate Defendant...more
A class action complaint was filed against Defendant who sent 8,430 faxes to more than 200 people containing business advise. The trial court granted judgment against Defendant in the amount of $4,215,000, which Defendant...more
After allowing Plaintiff multiple opportunities to submit additional authority in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the court dismissed his class action Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can...more
Pending before the Court was Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider its dismissal of a class action Complaint based on a conclusion that New York Civil Practice Law 901(b) bars TCPA class actions in federal court. Plaintiff relied...more
An Alabama Plaintiff sued New Jersey Defendants for violating the TCPA by sending an unsolicited fax advertising material for answering services provided by Defendant. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss challenging Personal...more
Pending before the court was Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s TCPA claim contending Defendant sent unsolicited faxes in violation of the law. Also pending before the court was Defendant’s Motion to Strike class...more
Plaintiff filed suit, placing at issue allegedly unsolicited faxes sent in violation of the TCPA. At issue was the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant’s argued that the Illinois two-year statute governing claims...more
Bias Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson Nelnet, LLC, No. Civ. 11-00011, 2013 WL 663301 (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2013)
Pending before the court was Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider denial of its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s...more
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging Defendants made or caused unsolicited calls to their cell phones in violation of the TCPA while acting under the guise of conducting a political survey to get their foot in the door to sell...more
In a case originally filed in 2007, and in which the Complaint was amended several times, Plaintiff asserted a TCPA claim, which was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Other claims were also...more
After dropping off a prescription with Defendant, Plaintiff was asked for several pieces of information, including her cell phone number. According to Defendant, the number was needed “in case there were any questions that...more
The issue before the court was whether Plaintiff’s prior express consent to call his land line equated consent to call that number when ported to his cell phone. ...more