Defendant loanDepot seeks an order to stay and bifurcate discovery in plaintiff Zachary Sawicki’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint pending the court’s ruling on loanDepot’s motions to dismiss and to strike Sawicki’s class allegations, said its motion Friday (docket 2:22-cv-14425) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. Discovery should be stayed because resolution of the pending motions “will dispose of or substantially narrow the scope of claims in this action,” it said. LoanDepot also favors doing discovery in three phases “to effectively manage this litigation, conserve party and judicial resources, and resolve factual disputes” about the merits of Sawicki’s individual claims, it said. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon previously denied loanDepot’s three separate motions to strike the class allegations and to stay or bifurcate discovery, giving the defendant until Friday to refile the requests as “two consolidated motions” (see 2303010003). LoanDepot's separate refiled motion Friday to strike Sawicki's class allegations said the plaintiff "seeks to represent four classes, all of which are fatally flawed, and in a manner that discovery cannot repair."

Tucson resident Debra Duke filed a class action and demand for jury trial Monday to stop American Express “from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making pre-recorded calls to consumers’ phone numbers without first obtaining their prior express consent," said her complaint (docket 4:23-cv-00125) in U.S. District Court for Arizona. “Numerous consumers have posted complaints online regarding wrong number debt collection calls that they received” from American Express, it said. Duke started receiving prerecorded calls and text messages from American Express in August to her cellphone number, it said. The calls and text messages were intended for Melissa Mae Treso, whom Duke doesn’t know, the complaint said.

Defendant Macy’s sent plaintiff James Williams "repeated unsolicited" automated telemarketing text messages to his residential cellphone to a number listed on the national do not call registry since June, alleged Williams’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00312) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut. The retailer's texts to Williams “were a form of communication that Macy’s also sent to tens of thousands of other consumers with identical or substantially identical verbiage,” it said. Many of the text messages, including some Williams, a Connecticut resident, received, “were identical across all call recipients,” it said. “Even where there were minute differences between messages, it was the result of the sophisticated, automated nature of Macy’s autodialer systems,” it said. The dialing system Macy’s used to place the text message calls “automatically populated generic message templates with information its system attributed to the particular phone number it intended to contact,” it said. The system “then populates specific data into the template -- similar to a mail merge -- and automatically sends these text messages en masse,” it said. Macy’s knew it didn’t have consent to send the messages but nevertheless continued to text Williams, it said: “Macy’s has the ability to immediately stop text messages from being sent to those who request not to receive them, but it has failed to ensure that this occurs.”

Charter Communications removed to U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale on Friday the putative class action filed Feb. 8 in the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County in which pro se plaintiff Shlomy Halawani alleges Spectrum violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Charter denies Halawani’s “claims of wrongdoing, his requests for relief, and that any class can be certified,” said its notice of removal (docket 0:23-cv-60453). Spectrum “engages in unsolicited robocalling” to market its internet, mobile and television services in violation of the statutes, said Halawani’s complaint. Spectrum’s robocalls have caused Halawani and members of the proposed class harm, including violations of their statutory rights and invasion of their privacy, it said.

The case brought by eight states alleging multiple defendants initiated millions of robocalls to the public in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act “is subject to being called to trial on short notice” during the month of June, said a proposed modified docket control order (docket 4:20-cv-02021) signed Thursday by U.S. District Judge George Hanks for Southern Texas in Houston. The court estimates a jury trial will last 10 days, said the order. Hanks recently signed orders entering $122.34 million monetary judgments against two defendants, John Spiller and Jakob Mears, suspended for their inability to pay (see 2303070017).

Plaintiff Mary Graehl and defendant Kohl’s settled all Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims between them, and are in the process of completing the final closing documents and filing for the case's dismissal, said Graehl’s settlement notice Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-01341) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Wisconsin in Milwaukee. The parties anticipate that process will take no more than 60 days and request that the court “retain jurisdiction for any matters related to completing and/or enforcing the settlement,” said the notice. They propose to file a dismissal with prejudice within 60 days, and ask the court to stay all proceedings until then, it said. Graehl’s Nov. 14 complaint alleged Kohl’s inundated her with “harassing” debt collection calls, and that she suffered “concrete harm” as a result of Kohl’s actions (see 2211140063).

Travis County, Texas, consumer Daniel Graham filed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-00254) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin in which he alleges 25 “John Does” inflicted “concrete injury” by inundating him with more than a dozen unwanted and unsolicited telemarketing calls to a number he listed on the national do not call registry since November 2021. The identities of the telemarketers “are unknown but may be disclosed in discovery and should be made parties to this action,” said his complaint, which misidentifies the statute as the Telephone Communication Practices Act. Graham has “information and belief” that the calls’ originating number, 254-268-7594, is registered to Onvoy, a telecommunications services provider, it said. He’s represented by Austin attorney Brent Devere.

The settlement agreement that defendant-appellant DirecTV reached with plaintiffs-appellees David Vance, Roxy Vance and Carla Shultz (see 2301300002) “calls for the drafting of additional documents, including a preliminary approval order, class notices, and a claim form,” the parties told the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a joint status report Wednesday (docket 22-1958). “Once the parties agree on the form and content of those additional documents, the settlement agreement will be ready for execution,” said the report. After the parties execute the agreement, the plaintiffs will have two weeks “to move for preliminary approval of the agreement in the district court,” it said. The parties will update the 4th Circuit every 30 days, it said. DirecTV is appealing the district court’s certification of class members in a December 2017 Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint. DirecTV also is appealing the lower court’s denial of its motion to compel plaintiff Shultz to arbitration of her TCPA claims. The 4th Circuit consolidated the two appeals in October.

Little progress has been made since attorneys for plaintiff Mario Vega and defendant Wells Fargo Bank signed a joint stipulation Dec. 21 sending their Telephone Consumer Protection Act dispute to binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (see 2212230002), said the parties’ joint status report Monday (docket 3:22-cv-01697) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Arbitration was initiated around Jan. 24, said the report. Wells Fargo submitted its answer in arbitration around Feb. 17, but “no arbitrator has yet been appointed and no final arbitration hearing has yet been set,” it said. Vega’s Nov. 1 complaint alleged Wells Fargo continued to “willfully call” him more than 75 times to collect a debt after his lawyer sent the bank a cease and desist letter May 5 revoking Vega’s prior consent to be contacted.

Plaintiff Thomas Gebka’s opposition to State Farm’s motion to dismiss his amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint “asserts that he will identify damages traceable to State Farm by showing how State Farm is vicariously liable for the alleged calls that State Farm did not make.” So said State Farm’s reply memorandum Monday (docket 1:22-cv-05546) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in support of its motion to dismiss. Gebka’s amended complaint “fails to identify any unlawful conduct by State Farm, nor does it allege facts that could support holding State Farm vicariously liable for the conduct attributed to the independent contractor agencies or the telemarketing vendors,” it said. None of the arguments Gebka advanced in his opposition is “sufficient to either establish standing or state a claim,” it said. Gebka “fails in his effort to support his claim that the callers were vested by State Farm with actual authority to place the calls at issue,” it said.