Sydney Lim’s phone number has continuously been listed on the national do not call registry since May 2017, yet she received at least two dozen prerecorded telemarketing calls from Amity Debt Relief or its agents between Jan. 4 and Feb.14, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-04778) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. The calls were to promote Amity’s offer of an “economic impact relief loan,” a type of debt consolidation loan designed to help people reduce high-interest debt, said the complaint. The New Jersey resident phoned Amity Feb. 10 and spoke with a live agent, requesting that she be removed from Amity’s call lists, it said. The agent confirmed that removal, yet she continued receiving the calls, it said. Lim seeks injunctive relief and treble damages because he alleges the TCPA violations were "negligent, willful, or knowing."
Carvana seeks the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiff Michael Cribier’s Jan. 12 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, said its motion Thursday (docket 3:24-cv-00094) ) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego.
Kevin Sinitski received notification from his credit monitoring company that his personally identifiable information (PII) was involved in a V12Software data breach. The Feb. 15 notice from Credit Wise informed Sinitski of an incident he was unaware of, his class action alleged Thursday (docket 5:24-cv-02171) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose.
Three trackers collect Buzzfeed consumers’ IP addresses when they visit the entertainment website, without their consent, alleged a privacy class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-02753) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
Ford objects to the “improper” plaintiffs’ motion for an advisory opinion for leave to amend their 3G telematics class action complaint and for an “indicative ruling” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 62.1.1, said the automaker’s opposition Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01716) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. The four plaintiffs allege that the 3G modems on Ford vehicles they bought or leased were rendered inoperable, as were the roadside assistance features that depended on those modems, after AT&T’s 3G phaseout in 2022. They allege the carmaker knew as early as 2019 that AT&T’s phaseout of the 3G network was inevitable and yet continued to manufacture vehicles with 3G modems. U.S. District Judge Michael Anello denied Ford’s motion to compel the plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration, and Ford is appealing that denial to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2312040038). Ford’s Dec. 1 notice of appeal “divested the trial court of jurisdiction and automatically stayed further district court proceedings,” said its opposition. Despite that automatic stay, the plaintiffs seek to “circumvent resolution” of Ford’s appeal on the merits “by omitting their allegations that Ford’s authorized dealerships are agents of Ford,” it said. Such an amendment would be “futile,” it said. Principles of estoppel “would still permit consideration of the original as pleaded claims that were considered,” it said. Even if that weren’t the case, and even if the plaintiffs removed the allegation, “their causes of action require that some underlying agency relationship exist between Ford and its authorized dealerships,” it said. The plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent omission, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and for breach of implied warranty “all require some underlying relationship” between Ford, the plaintiffs and the sales transaction with the authorized dealerships, it said. Ford’s appeal is based on the arguments made in its motion to compel arbitration, said its opposition. The carmaker argues that it may enforce the arbitration provisions as the alleged principal of the dealerships that countersigned the sales and lease contracts, it said. Ford also argues it may enforce the arbitration provisions as a third-party beneficiary of the lease contracts, and that it may enforce the arbitration provisions based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, it said. The plaintiffs’ removal of agency allegations wouldn’t “moot the issues on appeal,” it said. Ford will meet and confer with the plaintiffs “so as to obviate the need to file a formal motion to enforce the appellate stay,” it said.
Mark Ortega has had his cellphone number listed on the national do not call registry for more than a year, yet he received an unsolicited telemarketing call Feb. 29 from RCN Group seeking to sell him a business loan, alleged Ortega’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 5:24-cv-00369) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in San Antonio. Ortega’s attorney emailed RCN March 4 demanding damages because the plaintiff’s number was listed on the national DNC registry and because he didn’t consent to receiving RCN’s communications, said the complaint. RCN responded the next day, stating that it pays a call center for every lead, it said. These messages from RCN are being placed to consumers without consent, including to consumers who registered their phone numbers on the DNC, as per the San Antonio resident’s experience, it said.
Silicon Valley Mechanical (SVM) stored the personally identifiable information (PII) of plaintiff Patrick Brenan and class members “unencrypted, in an Internet-accessible environment” on its network, allowing cybercriminals to access it using an "extraction tool," alleged a negligence class action Wednesday (docket 5:24-cv-02147) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose.
TrueCoverage used illegal prerecorded telemarketing to promote health insurance over the phone by making solicitation calls to plaintiff Jason Hewett and others without their prior express consent, alleged Hewitt’s class action Tuesday (docket 7:24-cv-00339) in U.S. District Court for Eastern North Carolina. Hewett’s residential cellphone number has been on the national do not call registry since he listed it there in April 2022, said his complaint. The North Carolina resident nevertheless received at least one prerecorded telemarketing call on that number, promoting TrueCoverage’s offering for health insurance services, it said. Hewitt’s counsel attempted to contact TrueCoverage to learn why Hewitt was called using “highly illegal prerecorded robocalls,” it said. TrueCoverage’s counsel responded by contending that it hired a vendor to place the calls at issue, but it refused to name the vendor and instead attempted to make Hewitt a settlement offer, it said. The plaintiff’s privacy has been violated because TrueCoverage’s call to him was unwanted, it said. Hewitt never provided his consent or requested the call, it said.
Asher Bronstin listed his cellphone number on the national do not call registry in 2021, and it has been registered there continuously since, yet Simply Better Brands, a Scottsdale-based seller of cannabis goods, sent him at least five telemarketing text messages advertising its cannabidiol gummies, alleged Bronstin’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-00792) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. Though Bronstin replied “stop” to opt out, the messages “unsurprisingly continued,” said the complaint. The plantiff never provided his consent or requested the text messages, which were all “unwanted, nonconsensual encounters,” it said. Bronstin and all members of the class have been harmed by the acts of the defendant “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said. The text messages also occupied their phone lines, storage space and bandwidth, “rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, including while driving, working, and performing other critical tasks,” it said.
By requesting a “blanket stay of discovery,” HP seeks to bring an antitrust class action involving its ink cartridges “to a standstill,” said the plaintiffs’ memorandum Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-00164) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in support of their opposition to HP's motion for a discovery stay. The plaintiffs contend that HP shows no good cause under Rule 26(c)(1). They cite Dickson v. Chicago Allied Warehouses in which the court found that such motions won't be granted "unless the party seeking the stay makes a strong showing why discovery should be denied.” HP challenges the adequacy of all claims in the complaint, but concerns about potential costs associated with antitrust discovery “is not tantamount to an automatic prohibition on discovery in every antitrust case where defendants challenge the sufficiency of a complaint,” said the memorandum, citing New England Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund v. Abbott Labs. Plaintiffs’ claims involve “complex antitrust law that will require detailed and thoughtful analysis,” said the filing, but the case doesn’t “'present an unusually thorny or difficult set of factual issues to be explored’ so as to make discovery abnormally burdensome or expensive,” it said. HP complains about the burdensome nature of the plaintiffs’ anticipated discovery “even though ‘the parties have not even discussed the discovery’” they intend to request, it said. “Simply put, HP has not carried its burden to overcome the general rule that discovery stays are ‘heavily disfavored.’”