Cases for Telephone and Answering Machine violations

[NeverQuietHere]

Berg V Merchant's - 3rd party disclosure

 

Foti V NCO-automated calls are communications and leaving a message on a machine is a communication

 

Edwards v Niagara Credit Solutions-no phone messages basically

 

Hozzeinzadeh v M R S Associates didn't mention debt on message, but is supposed to

 

Knoll v Intellirisk - falsifying caller id

 

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...&hl=machine

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...&hl=machine

 

 

 

http://creditboards.com/forums/index.php?s...&hl=machine

 

 

 

 

Belin Vs Liton Loan Services

 

 

Leyse Vs Corp Collection Services

 

Feel free to add any that you know of ....

Edited April 13, 2010 by NeverQuietHere

[TrevorHere]

^

[jack1212]

Im sure state laws have an input.

 

Maybe dolemite will be in soon with the TCPA issues.

[NeverQuietHere]

I know, I came across a dole thread the other day about TCPA and I should have bookmarked it so I could add it in here. But then again, I don't know if we should keep the TCPA separate from the FDCPA claims or what???

[jack1212]

I know, I came across a dole thread the other day about TCPA and I should have bookmarked it so I could add it in here. But then again, I don't know if we should keep the TCPA separate from the FDCPA claims or what???

 

I know what you mean. It can be seperate from the FDCPA and maybe even state laws, but when put all together, they really pack a punch.

[NeverQuietHere]

good point

[Jen23514]

FLORIDA DISTRICT COURT HOLDS DEBT COLLECTORS NOT EXEMPT FROM TCPA

Kahn v, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 8:10-cv-2399-T-26TGW, 2011 WL 223870 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2011).

 

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending that the TCPA exempts debt collectors from its purview, citing Bates v. I.C. Sys., Inc., 2009 WL 3459740 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 2009); Meadows v. Franklin Collection Serv., Inc., 2010 WL 265048 (N.D. Ala. 2010) and TSA Stores, Inc. v. Florida Dep;t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., 957 So. 2d 25, 27 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007). Rejecting Defendants' argument, the court held that Bates denied a motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiff's complaint stated a claim for relief under the TCPA and Meadows dealt with a motion for summary judgment, which the court characterized as "far different from a motion to dismiss."

 

ARIZONA DISTRICT COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENT THAT IT CANNOT HEAR TCPA CLAIM

Driesen v. First Revenue Assurance, LLC, No. CV 10-8061-PCT-MHM, 2010 WL 5090363 (D. Ariz. Dec. 8, 2010).

 

Pending before the court was the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's TCPA claim could only be heard in state court, and contention that argument the court could hear the claim pursuant to its supplemental jurisdictional authority was misplaced because it was sufficiently distinct from the other pending claims to prohibit exercise of this jurisdiction. Rejecting the defendant's argument that when Congress authorized jurisdiction over private TCPA actions in state courts without mentioning federal courts, it did not intend to allow federal courts to hear these claims, the court noted "[c]ourts that have considered this issue [. . .] have concluded that federal courts can have supplemental jurisdiction over TCPA claims. It also concluded that though different elements of proof were necessary for the various claims asserted, all claims arose from the defendant's efforts to collect on its client's debts through telephone contact. As such, the claims arose from a common nucleus of operative facts allowing exercise of the court's supplemental jurisdiction.

[Jen23514]

Gutierrez v. Barclays Group, US Dist. Ct., S.D. Calif., 2011

 

The decision in this case states that, per the TCPA:

 

1.) Revocation of prior express consent by the subscriber permitting calls by any party (a creditor here) to call need not be in writing; oral revocation is sufficient.

 

2.) The subscriber (the one who owns the number) has standing to sue even if they were not the intended recipient/target.

 

3.) The call need not result in a charge to the subscriber for a TCPA violation to occur.