Sage's Claims 'Speculative' in Telephone Solicitations Case, Says Halsted

Sage Telecom’s allegations that Halsted Financial Service violated the Texas Business & Commercial Code are speculative and insufficient to state a claim, said the defendant’s Wednesday motion to dismiss (see 2303020063) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas (docket 3:23-cv-00463).

Sage alleged last month that debt collection agency Halsted Financial Services violated the Texas Business & Commercial Code when it made at least 454 telephone solicitations in the past two years to Sage Telecom’s low-income voice customers without first procuring a registration certificate with the state as the statute requires (see 2303020063).

The plaintiff labeled Halsted as a “seller” without providing any context or information on the product or service Halsted allegedly attempted to sell, said the motion. The complaint implies Sage is a “purchaser,” even though Halsted didn’t contact Sage “but rather Plaintiff’s customers.”

The complaint is “devoid of any factual allegations” that would support Sage’s claim Halsted initiated telephone calls to induce it or its customers to buy, rent, claim or receive a product or service, the motion said. Sage filed the suit “upon pure speculation.” Its “mere recitation of the telemarketing status, without more, is insufficient to state a claim,” under the Texas Business and Commerce Code, also known as Texas Telephone Solicitation Act (TTSA), Halsted said.

Though the complaint doesn't allege Halsted placed a single call to Sage, the telecom provider alleged Halsted made over 454 solicitation calls to Sage customers, said the motion. It then contended “this somehow means Halsted initiated solicitation calls to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff is entitled to relief for the alleged violation.” Sage contends in the complaint it's entitled to an award of $5,000 for each knowing violation.

Halsted called Sage’s award claim “twisted reasoning.” That Sage is entitled to recover for damage “is just plain nonsensical,” Halsted said: “Plaintiff is arguing that despite the fact the people receiving these alleged solicitation calls were Plaintiff’s customers and not Plaintiff itself.”

Halsted anticipates Sage will argue it has standing to bring the claim under a Deceptive Trade Practices Act tie-in statute due to the alleged violation of TTSA. But Sage can’t satisfy the DTPA consumer status “as it never sought or acquired goods or services by purchase or lease from Halsted, and no goods or services purchased or leased form the basis of its suit,” it said.