Robert Doyle voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action claims against Resorts Condominium International (RCI), said his notice Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-23237) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark. In its “overzealous attempt” to market its timeshare services, RCI knowingly and willfully made, and continues to make, unsolicited telemarketing phone calls, alleged Doyle’s Dec. 19 complaint (see 2312200004).

Arthur Cochran intends to oppose the Dec. 13 motion of Boost Health Insurance to dismiss Cochran’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2312140005) in which it claims that it didn’t “purposefully avail itself of Florida” when the vendor it hired, Work Business Solutions, made telemarketing calls to Cochran and other individuals into Florida and to Florida area codes, said Cochran’s motion to compel discovery Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-00473) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. In opposing the motion to dismiss, Cochran plans to demonstrate that Boost Health was aware that its vendor was contacting Florida area codes with its telemarketing calls, said his motion. Cochran needs discovery “to learn the extent of that conduct,” but Boost Health “has refused to produce the calling data that evidences how frequently” its vendor was contacting Florida area codes, it said. Boost Health has rejected Cochran’s discovery requests on grounds that the information he seeks isn’t relevant “to the claims and defenses of the parties and is not proportionate to the needs of the case,” said Cochran’s motion. Boost Health also argues that the discovery request “lacks reasonable temporal limitations and predates the time period” in which Cochran alleges to have received contact on behalf of Boost Health, it said. A defendant whose agent makes “tortious calls” to a Florida resident is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Florida, it said. Courts evaluating personal jurisdiction in TCPA cases have regularly applied the “effects test” from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Calder v. Jones “to evaluate whether a defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of doing business within the forum,” it said. Through his discovery request, Cochran is seeking documents and information reflecting that Boost Health was aware that its vendor was calling Florida telemarketing numbers, it said. Such information has been compelled or evaluated by courts to consider the issue, it said. The information he seeks about calls to Florida as part of the same campaign resulting in calls to Cochran is “critical” to responding to Boost Health’s motion to dismiss, “as other courts have relied on similar information in denying motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in TCPA cases,” it said.

Plaintiffs Sheila and Dennis Thompson are "precluded" from recovering any damages from Vintage Stock for a willful or knowing Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation, said the home entertainment retailer’s answer Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-00042) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri in St. Louis to the Thompsons’ March 1 first amended complaint. Any such violation, which Vintage Stock denies occurred, wouldn’t have been willful or knowing, “but instead would have been unintentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable efforts to fully comply with the law,” said its answer. The Thompsons allege Vintage Stock sent them dozens of promotional text messages over several years. They’re currently seeking to remand count II of their first amended complaint to St. Louis County Circuit Court where the complaint originated before Vintage Stock removed it from federal court in January 2023. Their remand motion came days after U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark granted Vintage Stock’s motion to dismiss without prejudice that count of the Thompsons’ complaint (see 2402090027). The judge found that the Thompsons lacked standing to bring the count II allegation that Vintage Stock failed to institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to be called.

Kohl’s denies that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act “or any other statute, law or common law theory of recovery based on the allegations” in a Dec. 28 complaint (see 2312290001), said the retailer’s answer Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-02312) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis. Plaintiff Adrian Thomas alleges he fell behind on his monthly Kohl’s credit card payments, only to be hounded by the retailer’s incessant debt collection calls. Kohl’s answer asserted nine affirmative defenses against the allegations, including that Thomas “expressly or impliedly consented to and approved all of the acts and omissions” when he consented to be contacted by Kohl’s about his charge account when he agreed to the terms of the account in November 2022. Kohl’s alleges that the damages Thomas seeks violate the Constitution's due process clause, and constitute excessive fines in violation of the Eighth Amendment, said its answer. Granting Thomas’ demand for damages would result in unjust enrichment, it said. Thomas hasn’t alleged that he suffered any “particularized and concrete injury, whether tangible or intangible,” as a result of any contact Kohl’s made in connection with his charge account, it said. The damages Thomas seeks against Kohl’s, up to and including treble damages and punitive damages for willful and knowing TCPA infractions, after Thomas consented to be contacted, constitutes an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment, it said. Granting Thomas’ demand would result in his receiving more money than he’s entitled to receive, it said. That’s because none of the calls that Kohl’s made to Thomas was “in violation of the TCPA or any other law or theory of legal recovery,” it said.

Carlos Delgadillo asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds for Eastern Michigan in Detroit to withdraw her Feb. 14 show cause order, said his response Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-10039). The show cause order directed the plaintiff to explain why his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against FCA US shouldn’t be dismissed for failure to prosecute (see 2402150004). But Delgadillo responded that the court entered an order Jan. 29 extending the time for FCA to respond to the complaint to March 15. Delgadillo alleges that FCA violates the TCPA by placing prerecorded calls without consent to a group of individuals for whom the message isn't applicable and who requested not to receive the calls (see 2401090001). While calls designed to notify consumers about airbag recalls for their Chrysler cars are important, FCA is calling "a whole host of individuals who never owned a car that the recall is relevant to," including Delgadillo, he alleges.

Omaha resident MaKenzie Lazo seeks to stop a Toyota dealership in Irving, Texas, 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 have expressly requested that the calls stop,” said her class action Wednesday (docket 3:24-cv-00411) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Village Pointe Toyota also lacks a “sufficient” internal do not call system, causing consumers like Lazo “to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls despite having requested that the calls stop,” said her complaint. Lazo listed her cellphone number on the national DNC registry in October 2021, yet her complaint logs 76 unsolicited calls she received between June 27 and Jan. 8. The calls persisted even after she personally phoned the dealership multiple times asking that the calls stop, said the complaint. Lazo has owned her cellphone number for about 10 years and has never used it for business purposes or advertised it as a business number, said the complaint. She also has never done business with or inquired about a vehicle for sale at Village Pointe Toyota, it said. The unauthorized solicitation calls have harmed Lazo “in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy,” it said. The calls also have occupied her phone line and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone, it said.

U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale granted the unopposed motion of Harley-Davidson Financial Services to compel Michael Mordis’ Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims to arbitration, said the judge’s signed order Tuesday (docket 0:23-cv-62359). The parties agree that they are both bound by the arbitration provisions of Harley-Davidson’s dispute resolution agreement, said the order. The court agrees that Mordis’ claims under the TCPA and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act “can be submitted to arbitration, as the terms of the agreement may fairly be read to cover the claims at issue in this lawsuit,” it said. He ordered the case stayed pending resolution of the arbitration and for the parties to file a joint status report within 14 days after the arbitration award is issued. Mordis alleged that Harley-Davidson continued to “harass” him with debt collection calls to his cellphone after he bought a motorcycle but was unable to keep up with the regular monthly payments (see 2312180002).

Capital Infusion, which places solicitation calls to businesses that may require capital funding, violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making telemarketing calls and sending text messages to consumers without consent, including calls and text messages to phone numbers listed on the national do not call registry, alleged Erica Cardenas’ class action Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-20647) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. Capital Infusion, based in Miami, also violates the TCPA by contacting consumers “who have expressly requested that the calls and texts stop,” the complaint said. Cardenas, a resident of Chula Vista, California, alleges Capital Infusion “lacks a sufficient opt-out system” to ensure that a consumer who notifies the company to stop calling or texting them will be removed from its contact list, said the complaint. “Consumers and businesses have posted complaints online about unsolicited calls and text messages they received from Capital Infusion,” including from consumers who received additional unsolicited calls after telling the company to stop calling. Cardenas listed her cellphone number on the national DNC registry Nov. 9, yet she received multiple unwanted calls soliciting her about business finance loans, said her complaint. She told the callers she's not seeking business financing because she doesn't own a business, it said. The callers have been asking consistently to speak to an Eric Thompson, an individual she doesn’t know, it said. The unauthorized calls and text messages that Cardenas received from or on behalf of Capital Infusion have harmed her “in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy,” it said. The calls and texts have also occupied her phone line and disturbed her use and enjoyment of her phone, it said.

Seven weeks to the day after U.S. District Judge Julien Neals for New Jersey in Newark denied Plymouth Rock’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Robert Clough’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2401030051), the New Jersey insurance company reacted aggressively on two fronts in its answer Friday (docket 2:21-cv-19343). Plymouth Rock first countersued Clough for violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, alleging that he runs a “cottage industry” of filing “sham” TCPA lawsuits with the class action against Plymouth Rock just the latest. It then filed a third-party complaint alleging that its call vendor, ConnectThe Calls.com, and its owner, Marlen Rapoport, violated the terms of an October 2019 contract that bars the vendor from violating the TCPA and in which the vendor agreed to indemnify Plymouth Rock against legal peril. The counterclaim alleges that Clough falsely misrepresented his interest seeking automobile insurance policies and quotes, while fraudulently using a third person’s identity without permission. Clough did so “solely and expressly for the purpose of concocting an otherwise meritless claim” under the TCPA. Clough’s fraudulent actions “are prohibited under New Jersey common law and statutes,” it said. Clough’s fraud has caused actual harm to Plymouth Rock, said the counterclaim. The insurer “has been compelled to expend time and resources in connection with the handling of Clough’s fraudulent telephonic solicitations for an automobile insurance quote proposal in which he had no genuine interest,” it said. Clough’s fraud has caused further actual harm to Plymouth Rock in responding to such false claims “and defending against the concocted lawsuits,” including the litigation costs and fees it has been forced to pay, it said. In the third-party complaint, Plymouth Rock alleges that Rapoport and the vendor are liable for all debts and obligations “under the doctrines of veil piercing, alter ego, and successor liability.” Neither Rapoport nor the vendor “has taken any measures to defend or indemnify Plymouth Rock” against Clough’s claims in the TCPA complaint, it said. While denying all liability as to any and all claims in Clough’s complaint, Plymouth Rock “is entitled to a defense, indemnification, contribution, and breach of contract damages” from Rapoport and the vendor, it said.

Debt collector Atlas Credit continues placing “harassing” calls to Jessica Garcia, despite her demands that the calls stop and despite her “explicitly telling” the company of her inability to pay back her loan, alleged Garcia’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Friday (docket 7:24-cv-00053) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in McAllen. Garcia, a Rio Grande, Texas, consumer, entered into a personal loan agreement with Atlas in February 2023, and began making monthly repayments, said the complaint. In November, due to “unforeseen financial hardship,” Garcia was unable to continue making her monthly payments, thus incurring a debt totaling about $1,600, it said. The collection calls from Atlas began almost immediately and have persisted to the present day, it said. Garcia’s multiple demands that the calls stop “fell on deaf ears,” said her complaint. Atlas’ “harassing phone calls and conduct” have severely disrupted Garcia’s “everyday life and overall well-being,” it said. The complaint also alleges violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act.