Plaintiff Dayna Rice brought suit Monday against Central Mortgage Funding to stop it from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls to consumers without consent, including calls to phone numbers listed on the national do not call registry and to consumers who expressly asked that the calls stop. The defendant, which offers loan refinancing services to consumers, places telemarketing “cold calls” to consumers without their consent, “including to those consumers who have recently had their credit checked by a different company,” said the Sylvania, Georgia, resident’s class action (docket 2:23-cv-12143) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit. The company even lists cold calling as a job description in its job postings, said the complaint. Central Mortgage Funding “lacks a sufficient opt-out system” to ensure that consumers who notify the company to stop calling them will be removed from its calling list, the complaint said. Rice alleges she began receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls on her cellphone as soon as her bank pulled her credit in mid-June from the defendant promoting its loans and refinancing offers, it said. She alleges Central Mortgage Funding phoned her eight times on June 19 alone between the hours of 10:34 a.m. and 4:01 p.m. When the company phoned her again on June 22, she picked up the call and demanded of the Central Mortgage Funding employee on the line that the calls immediately stop, but the calls persisted into August, said her complaint. She seeks an injunction requiring the company “to cease all unsolicited calling activity,” plus an award of money damages and costs.

The U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago should dismiss with prejudice plaintiff Porsche Stegall’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act first amended class action for failure to state a claim, said the defendant New York Tribeca Group (NYTG) in a motion Friday (docket 1:23-cv-02862). Stegall alleges NYTG, a commercial loan company, runs “an aggressive cold-calling telemarketing campaign” that violates the TCPA (see 2305080003). But after having had the opportunity to amend her complaint, Stegall still hasn’t adequately alleged a residential phone number is at issue, said its motion. She continues to rely on a “conclusory allegation” that the phone number at issue is residential and adds only that the number is used for personal purposes, it said. But as several courts have concluded, “these allegations are insufficient and the claims should be dismissed in their entirety and with prejudice now” that she has had an opportunity to amend the initial complaint, it said.

Plaintiff Crystal Strickland seeks injunctive relief against Harry & David to halt its illegal Telephone Consumer Protection Act conduct, “which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals,” said her class action Friday (docket 6:23-cv-01580) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. During the month of June, Harry & David “sent or caused to be sent” multiple promotional telemarketing text messages to Strickland’s cellphone, to a number she had listed on the national do not call registry since May 2017, alleged her complaint. “At no point in time” did Strickland give Harry and David her express written consent to be contacted, nor does she have an “existing business relationship” with the defendant, it said. The unsolicited text messages caused Strickland “actual harm,” including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass and conversion, it said. The text messages also “inconvenienced” Strickland “and caused disruption to her daily life,” it said. Her proposed class includes all people in the U.S. who received at least one Harry & David text message more than once in any 12-month period in the previous four years and whose numbers were listed on the national DNC registry for at least 30 days. Harry & David didn't comment.

Allen Communication Learning Services, an employee training company, called plaintiff David Trungale’s cellphone nearly 800 times over the past two years to collect an unknown debt, yet Trungale “never had a business relationship” with Allen nor did he ever consent to receiving the calls, alleged his Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-01090) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. Trungale of Brookfield, Wisconsin, got written confirmation from Allen that the calls would stop, and even received confirmation the calls were being made with an “auto-dialer,” as that term is used in the TCPA, said his complaint. But the calls nevertheless persisted, and “interfered” with Trungale’s personal and business life, and “occupied extensive amounts” of his time, it said. The TCPA “creates substantive rights for consumers,” and violations of the statute cause injury to consumers that are “concrete and particularized,” said his complaint. All the calls were in willful violation of the TCPA because Allen had knowledge it didn’t have permission to call Trungale’s cellphone, it said.

Attorney and pro se plaintiff Bryan Reo, in his first amended complaint against Allstate for statutory violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, added Allstate agent Keith Zabrocki as a new defendant. Reo’s original complaint early in 2023 alleged Allstate shows “flagrant disregard” for TCPA because it got Reo’s contact information through improper means, and it repeatedly called him on his cellphone to solicit insurance products and services (see 2302220037). Allstate’s “initial disclosures” in that litigation identified the Keith Zabroski Agency as the entity responsible for obtaining Reo’s contact information and placing the unlawful calls, said the amended complaint Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-00329) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Ohio in Cleveland. Zabrocki “appears to be domiciled in Ohio and appears to be doing business in Ohio as an unincorporated sole proprietorship,” it said. Reo previously sued Allstate in 2013 and 2022, with both cases settled and resolved before “the accrual of the causes of action” pled in the current case, it said. During the 2022 litigation, Reo gave Allstate “an exhaustive list of his phone numbers,” and made it clear he didn’t want to be called by Allstate or any agents acting on its behalf, it said. But the calls ersisted, sparking Reo to file his 2023 litigation, it said.

U.S. District Judge Michael Moore for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale directed plaintiff Renate Moore and defendant Space Coast Credit Union to file a stipulation of dismissal of all Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims signed by all parties within 30 days, said the judge’s paperless order Thursday (docket 0:23-cv-60659). If such papers aren’t filed by Sept. 15, the case will be dismissed, and the court “will be divested of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement,” said the order. In their joint notice of settlement Wednesday, the parties said they’re in the process of “documenting the settlement,” and they anticipate completing the process, including filing a stipulation for dismissal, within 45 days. They asked the court to stay the action, “and vacate all remaining dates in light of the settlement.” Moore's April 6 class action alleged Space Coast “routinely violated” the TCPA by placing non-emergency calls to consumers’ cellphone numbers without their “prior express consent,” using an artificial or prerecorded voice (see 2304070001). Space Coast didn’t deny making the calls but said any TCPA wrongdoing was “unintentional” (see 2305020003).

U.S. District Judge Sean Cox for Eastern Michigan in Detroit gave plaintiff Mark Dobronski the opportunity to “cure the purported deficiencies” in his Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint, after defendant First American Home Warranty’s (FAHW) recently filed motion to dismiss, said his Wednesday order (docket 2:23-cv-11412). Cox didn’t express a view on the merits of the motion to dismiss. Dobronski can either file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order, and the court will deny without prejudice the pending motion to dismiss as moot, or file a response to the motion to dismiss, and the court will decide the motion based on the existing complaint, said the order. Dobronski’s July TCPA suit alleges FAHW uses a third-party call center with automatic telephone dialing systems that initiate prerecorded audio messages to consumers en masse seeking prequalifying information such as whether they want a refund for overpayment of their electric and gas utility bills.

UnitedHealthcare “routinely violates” the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an artificial or prerecorded voice to place nonemergency calls to consumers’ cellphone numbers without prior express consent, alleged plaintiff Elaine Johnson’s class action Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-00522) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Ocala. Lake County, Florida, resident Johnson alleges UHC phoned her multiple times since January 2021 to promote a rewards card that she could earn under the terms of her existing health insurance plan, except that she wasn't a UHC policyholder. Most times, UHC left Johnson a prerecorded voice message. On at least one occasion, she answered the call and told the insurer it was calling the wrong number and she had no business with UHC, it said. Johnson “suffered actual harm” due to UHC’s calls and artificial or prerecorded voice messages, suffering invasion of privacy, intrusion into her life and a “private nuisance,” and because she was forced to spend time trying to determine how to get the calls to stop, it said.

Plaintiff Mariana Munoz and defendant Wyndham Vacation Ownership submitted a joint motion for dismissal of Munoz’s action with prejudice, said a Tuesday filing (docket 3:23-cv-00342) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Parties will bear their own fees and costs. Munoz’s February robocalling complaint claimed Wyndham used an automatic telephone dialing system to place calls after she experienced financial hardship and defaulted on her regular monthly payments (see 2302230041). Wyndham argued in its May reply to the complaint that award of statutory or punitive damages to Munoz would be “grossly disproportionate" to any injury she sustained (see 2305160041).

Plaintiff Jean Zoulek lacks standing to bring her Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against telemarketing vendor A Marketing Resource because she didn’t suffer an injury-in-fact due to any conduct by AMR, said the vendor’s answer Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-01464) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The statutory penalties Zoulek seeks for herself and her purported class members are “excessive,” in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth and 14th amendments, it said. AMR “acted in good faith, and has established procedures, to avoid any violations of the law,” so any TCPA violations “were the result of a bona fide error,” it said. Zoulek alleges Gannett outsourced the calls to AMR, which violated the TCPA when it called numbers on the national do not call registry and didn’t stop when consumers asked it to (see 2212080002). Gannett was terminated as AMR’s co-defendant in March.