Frequent TCPA Plaintiff Sues Verizon Second Time Over Debt Collection Robocalls

Verizon removed to U.S. District Court for Rhode Island in Providence Wednesday a complaint filed June 12 in a state court in Washington County, alleging the carrier “harassed” pro se plaintiff Christopher Laccinole with robocalls for more than four years “for a debt he never owed.”

It’s Laccinole’s second Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit against Verizon in four years, and it seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief under the statute, said the complaint (docket 1:23-cv-00265). The complaint paints Verizon as a chronic TCPA violator. Laccinole of Willis, Texas, sued Verizon in 2019 for calling his cellphone incessantly and that case settled, it said.

Court records show Laccinole was the pro se plaintiff in 25 TCPA lawsuits against various defendants dating to August 2018. In one of those cases, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell for Rhode Island granted summary judgment in October for the International Union of Police Associations against Laccinole’s TCPA allegations (see 2210270032).

The union moved for summary judgment on all his claims, arguing Laccinole wasn’t a consumer under the terms of the TCPA because he ran a business buying “burner phones.” McConnell noted in his opinion that the union learned through discovery that, contrary to Laccinole's claims he was harmed by the union's calls, he welcomed the solicitous calls of various vendors and recorded them to build evidence for lawsuits he pursues for profit.

Laccinole’s complaint Wednesday said Verizon knows that placing prerecorded debt collection calls to cellphones without consent violates the TCPA. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2019, during the “pendency” of Laccinole’s first lawsuit against Verizon, that the TCPA prohibits Verizon's prerecorded debt collection calls, it said.

Verizon settled the 1st Circuit class action case for $3.95 million, said the complaint. Before that 1st Circuit case, in May 2016, Verizon settled another “massive” class action TCPA case for $4 million in the Northern District of California, where the calls involved prerecorded debt collection calls to cellphones, the complaint said. The facts in both those cases “mirror the facts in the instant action,” it said. Verizon made the business decision that it’s “far more profitable to shirk compliance with the TCPA,” it said. Verizon didn’t comment.

Laccinole owes Verizon zero debt, said the complaint. He sent Verizon five certified letters telling the carrier to stop calling him, it said. Verizon responded to one of the letters via FedEx with written assurances it would stop, but it never did, it said. Laccinole brings his action to stop Verizon’s “harassing, abusive, and prohibited conduct,” it said. Verizon’s TCPA violations were knowing, willful and intentional, it said. Verizon also failed to “maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation,” it said.

Every call Laccinole received from Verizon contained an artificial or prerecorded voice, said the complaint. He recognized this “because each call had the exact same message, same voice, same rhythm, and same intonation,” it said. In all, Laccinole tried 19 times to stop the Verizon calls to no avail, it said. The Verizon calls harmed him “by causing the very harm that Congress sought to prevent” when it enacted the TCPA, it said.