NuVision Auto Glass, a windshield replacement and repair company, promotes its services by engaging in "aggressive" sales calls and text messages to consumers with no regard for their rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even after customers ask NuVision to stop texting them, alleged plaintiff Justin Therrien’s class action Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-00934) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. NuVision began sending Therrien multiple text messages in November, urging him to book a windshield inspection appointment, said the complaint. The Marciopa County, Arizona, responded to one of the messages Nov. 10 with an expletive, demanding that the company stop contacting him, it said. Despite Therrien’s “unequivocal opt-out request,” NuVision continued to “bombard” him with more unwanted telemarketing text messages, it said. The plaintiff ultimately sent NuVision four opt-out requests, yet the company ignored them, it said. Therrien’s experience strongly suggests that the defendant uses multiple phone numbers to send marketing text messages to consumers, and fails to ensure that opt-out requests are honored, it said. At no point in time did Therrien give NuVision his express written consent to be contacted, said the complaint. To the extent that the company believed it ever had any consent to contact Therrien for marketing purposes, “that extent was expressly revoked” starting Nov. 10 when he responded to a NuVision text message with his opt-out expletive, it said. Even though the plaintiff used “explicit language” in some of his opt-out requests, his requests “clearly expressed his desire to not receive further tests,” it said. The defendant’s conduct is further illegal because Therrien listed his cellphone number on the national do not call registry in 2015, and it has been listed there “at all times relevant to this action,” it said.

None of the multiple reasons that plaintiff Jenice Clouse cites in her April 2 opposition to loanDepot’s March 6 motion to dismiss her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims (see 2404030037) is “persuasive,” and they all should be rejected, said loanDepot’s reply Wednesday (docket 8:23-cv-02720) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa in support of its motion to dismiss. Clouse's complaint alleges she began receiving calls on her cellphone from loanDepot in June, attempting to reach an unknown person named Elizabeth to solicit her to apply for a home mortgage loan. Clouse asserts the calls were unlawful, partly because her number has been listed on the national do not call registry for some time. Of loanDepot’s contention that only individuals who have personally listed their numbers on the DNC registry can claim protection under the TCPA, Clouse’s opposition asserts that the argument “blatantly disregards” the broader purpose of the TCPA “to protect consumers from unwelcome telephonic intrusions.” But loanDepot replied Wednesday that Clouse hasn’t alleged facts “giving rise to an inference that she personally registered her number,” and the court should decline her invitation “to make unsupported assumptions to that effect,” it said. Though Clouse suggests that she need not personally have listed her number on the DNC registry to claim the TCPA’s protections, “the plain language of the regulation forecloses this argument,” it said.

Plaintiff Heather Lee Minor and defendant Apollo Interactive agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of Minor’s individual Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims and without prejudice as to any other member of the putative class’s right to bring claims, said their joint stipulation of dismissal Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-00355) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, said the stipulation. Minor’s Aug. 10 class action alleged that Apollo, an advertising agency that provides lead generation services to businesses in the insurance industry, inundated U.S. consumers with unsolicited texts through a program called Apollo Alerts, to numbers listed on the national do not call registry (see 2308110002).

SoulCycle, a national fitness company that offers indoor cycling and spinning workout classes, “engages in aggressive telephonic sales calls to consumers” to promote its goods and services with no regard for consumers’ rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even after consumers ask the company to stop contacting them, alleged plaintiff Ian DiFalco’s class action Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-03103) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. DiFalco, a Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, resident, seeks injunctive relief to halt SoulCycle’s “illegal conduct,” which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation and disruption of the daily lives “of thousands of individuals,” said the complaint. DiFalco also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, it said. SoulCycle in January began “bombarding” DiFalco with telemarketing text messages to his cellphone, it said. He responded “stop” to one of the text messages Jan. 26, but SoulCycle ignored the opt-out request and continued to bombard DiFalco with more unwanted telemarketing text messages, it said. Upon information and belief, SoulCycle doesn't have a written policy for maintaining an internal do not call list, as the TCPA requires, said the complaint. It also doesn’t inform and train its telemarketing personnel on the existence and the use of any internal do not call list, as the statute also requires, it said. To the extent that SoulCycle ever had any consent to contact DiFalco for marketing purposes, that consent was “expressly revoked” Jan. 26 when he responded to SoulCycle with the word “stop,” it said. The unwanted telemarketing text messages caused DiFalco “actual harm,” said the complaint. He estimates that he has wasted 15-30 seconds reviewing each of SoulCycle’s unwanted messages, it said. Each time, DiFalco had to stop what he was doing to either retrieve his phone or look down at the phone to review the message, it said. He also wasted 15 minutes locating and retaining counsel for this case in trying to stop SoulCycle’s unwanted solicitations, it said.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy for Eastern Michigan in Detroit signed a stipulated order Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-12597) staying plaintiff Mark Dobronski’s deadline for responding to SelectQuote’s March 29 motion to compel discovery responses from him. Dobronski and SelectQuote are attempting to resolve their Telephone Consumer Protection Act dispute through a mediation that’s scheduled for Thursday, said the order. The parties are to notify the court by May 2 if the issues between them have been resolved in the mediation and the motion to compel is withdrawn, or, lacking a resolution, if Dobronski is required to file a response, it said. Pro se plaintiff Dobronski alleges that SelectQuote besieged him with telemarketing calls despite his number having been listed on the national do not call registry. SelectQuote’s motion to compel alleges that Dobronski’s discovery responses have been vague and full of boilerplate objections, and it contends that Dobronski’s “tactics of evading discovery and forcing motions like this are part of his strategy” (see 2404010018).

Former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Thomas Grant’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2404030047) is “wholly lacking in merit,” said Grant’s opposition Monday (docket 2:24-cv-00281) in U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. Grant’s TCPA complaint alleges Ramaswamy’s campaign, Vivek 2024, which was suspended Jan. 15, placed calls with the candidate's prerecorded voice. They were sent to consumers’ cellphones to promote the candidate’s telephonic town hall events. The calls were placed without obtaining consumers' prior express consent, the complaint alleges. Grant contends that a political candidate who doesn’t make calls, but whose official campaign instead makes them for him, may be held personally liable under the TCPA. Grant “sufficiently alleges” Ramaswamy’s liability for the prerecorded political campaign calls he received, said his opposition. As a result, Grant’s injuries from the calls “are traceable to Ramaswamy’s conduct,” it said. Grant sufficiently alleges that Ramaswamy “either personally placed the calls or, alternatively, was so heavily involved in the calls that he can either be deemed to have initiated them or is liable under control based and vicarious theories of liability,” it said. With regard to each theory, Grant alleges that Ramaswamy “determined to whom prerecorded calls would be sent, when they would be sent, and their content, and otherwise knew about and expressly authorized the transmission of the calls for his own personal benefit” as a candidate for president, “without consent, and despite complaints about them,” said the opposition. Grant’s allegations “are sufficient to put Ramaswamy on notice” of his claims, it said: “These are precisely the same types of allegations that have been deemed sufficient at the motion to dismiss stage to assert a TCPA claim against a political candidate arising from his campaign’s robocalls.” Ramaswamy’s robocalls aren’t “otherwise exempt from liability,” said the opposition. The exemptions Ramaswamy relies on “apply only to robocalls to landline numbers and not to robocalls to wireless numbers,” it said. His motion to dismiss should be denied “in total,” it said. Ramaswamy either expressly authorized making the prerecorded calls or knew that they were going to be made for his personal benefit, said the opposition. He did “nothing to stop them,” despite complaints from consumers about receiving them, it said. Ramaswamy also controlled the recipients of the calls by dictating that the messages were to be sent to voters registered as independents who had no prior relationship with him, said the opposition. Ramaswamy also controlled or had the right to control the messages' content, “as he is the candidate who ultimately stood to be elected” and personally recorded many of the messages transmitted to consumers as part of the prerecorded calls promoting his town hall meetings, it said.

Defendant Liberty Mortgage’s violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act were “knowing and intentional,” and it didn’t “maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation,” alleged plaintiff Casey Lowe’s class action Monday (docket 2:24-cv-00496) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento. Liberty ignored Lowe’s opt-out demands and sent him at least five telemarketing text messages, said the complaint. The “cumulative effect” of unsolicited text messages like Liberty’s “poses a real risk of ultimately rendering the phone unusable for text messaging purposes as a result of the phone’s memory being taken up,” said the complaint.

Allied Collection Services of California violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it attempted, through “systematic calls,” to collect on past-due credit card bills that plaintiff Sophia De La Torre defaulted on, alleged De La Torre’s class action Friday (docket 2:24-cv-03234) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. De La Torre was feeling harassed by Allied’s repeated phone calls, so she demanded that the company stop calling her, said the complaint. Allied’s representatives nevertheless “have persisted with their coercive attempts at extracting payment” from De La Torre, it said. She estimates that Allied placed no fewer than 15 calls to her cellphone without her consent, it said.

Plaintiff-appellant Patricia Crawford seeks the dismissal with prejudice under Rule 42(b) of her Telephone Consumer Protection Act appeal against the National Rifle Association’s political action committee without fees or costs to any party, said her unopposed motion Friday (docket 23-3830) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties executed a complete settlement agreement April 3, and the conditions of that agreement “have been fully satisfied,” said the motion. Crawford’s appeal contended that the district court erred by concluding that the video in the text message that the NRA sent her didn’t violate the TCPA’s prohibitions against calls and text messages with artificial or prerecorded voices.

TomoCredit engages in unsolicited text messaging to promote its credit relief services to consumers who have listed their phone numbers on the national do not call registry, alleged plaintiff Heriberto Valiente’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 1:24-cv-21483) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. Valiente seeks injunctive relief to halt TomoCredit’s unlawful conduct, “which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal” to her and her class members, said the complaint. Valiente began receiving TomoCredit’s text messages Nov. 22, though she never had a business relationship with the company, nor did she ever sign any type of authorization permitting or allowing the company to send her text message solicitations, it said. She also listed her phone number on the national DNC registry at least three years before receiving the text messages, it said. Court records show that Valiente’s lawsuit is the third TCPA complaint filed against TomoCredit since Dec. 5.