U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte for Central California in Los Angeles ordered plaintiff Robert Wenokur to show cause by June 20 why his Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Bank of America shouldn't be dismissed for “lack of prosecution,” said Birotte’s order Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-02473). Failure to respond to the show cause order “will be deemed consent to the dismissal of the action,” it said. BofA didn’t answer Wenokur’s complaint, yet Wenokur failed to request entry of default, said the order. He can satisfy the order by seeking entry of default or by dismissing the complaint, it said. Wenokur alleges BofA hounded him with 25 “abusive” debt collection calls over a period of three months, and that the calls continued even after he gave the bank “certified” notice that they stop (see 2304050003).

Case-Mate sent about 50 text messages to plaintiff Warren Ingram, a San Jose, California, resident, despite Ingram's listing on the national do not call registry, alleges a Wednesday Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint (docket 5:23-cv-02813) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. From August 2022 to February, Ingram received texts promoting discounted accessories, despite having added his name to the do not call registry July 14, said the complaint. Ingram suffered a “legally protected interest in privacy” and the messages forced him to “live without significant memory space” on his phone; the unwanted messages also caused “nuisance and lost time,” the complaint said. Ingram charged MagSafe with negligent and willful violation of the TCPA and seeks statutory damages of $500 for each negligent violation and $1,500 for willful violations, it said.

Broadlands, Virginia, plaintiff Ruhi Reimer, who filed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action May 11 against Kohl’s (see 2305120001), filed a nearly identical complaint Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-00741) against Lord & Taylor in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria. In both class actions, Reimer alleges “at some point in time,” he gave the retail defendants consent so he could receive their promotional text messages, but then he couldn’t get their messages to stop once he revoked his consent. Like in his action against Kohl’s, Reimer alleges Lord & Taylor also violated the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act. Reimer estimates Lord & Taylor hounded him with no fewer than eight unwanted promotional text messages after he asked the retailer to “cease all telephonic communications” with him in August 2022, said his complaint. Lord & Taylor hasn't given Reimer a copy of its internal do not call policy, despite repeated requests, it said.

Senior U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko for Northern Ohio in Cleveland scheduled a telephonic status conference for July 19 at 2:30 p.m. on plaintiff Bryan Reo’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Allstate, said the judge’s signed order Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-00329). Reo’s complaint alleges Allstate called him repeatedly, despite his number being listed on the national do not call registry and on Allstate’s internal do not call list (see 2302220037). Reo’s current complaint, which alleges the insurer shows “a flagrant disregard” for TCPA compliance, is the third time he sued Allstate for TCPA violations. Allstate admits it phoned Reo at least once with insurance quotes, but insists it did so with his consent.

Plaintiff Renate Moore and defendant Space Coast Credit Union picked Diane Walsh of JAMS to mediate their Telephone Consumer Protection Act dispute, said their joint notice Tuesday (docket 0:23-cv-60659) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Walsh is a retired former U.S. magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, having served there from 1994 to 2005. Moore’s class action alleges Space Coast left her at least 15 prerecorded debt collection voice mails in the past year for a debit card account she never opened, and that the calls and voice messages were intended for a person named Marie, whom she doesn’t know (see 2304070001).

Toyota of Dallas inundated plaintiff Rhonn Mitchell’s phone on "numerous occasions" with unsolicited telemarketing text messages, though his number was listed on the national do not call registry, and the texts continued even after he told the car dealership to stop, alleged Mitchell’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-01278) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Mitchell was never a Toyota of Dallas customer and hadn’t given the dealership his “prior express written consent” to text him, said the complaint. Mitchell and all members of his proposed classes have been harmed by the acts of Toyota of Dallas “in the form of multiple involuntary telephone and electrical charges, the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing texts, and violations of their statutory rights,” it said. The complaint asks that the dealership “be restrained from engaging in future telemarketing in violation of the TCPA.” It also asks that Toyota of Dallas or anyone acting on its behalf “be immediately restrained from altering, deleting or destroying any documents or records that could be used to identify class members.” The dealership didn’t comment Wednesday.

The June 1 opinion of the 6th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in Dickson v. Direct Energy, reversing the district court’s decision to grant Direct Energy’s motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (see 2306020041), supports plaintiff-appellant Stephen Muccio’s arguments for a similar reversal of a lower court’s dismissal in favor of defendant Global Motivation, Muccio’s counsel wrote the 11th Circuit Monday (docket 23-10081). Muccio is appealing the lower court’s decision that he failed to allege the concrete injury required to establish Article III standing when Global Motivation and its CEO Jordan Belfort sent him unsolicited telemarketing texts. The 6th Circuit said receipt of a single voicemail confers Article III standing “because it bears a sufficiently close relationship to the common law harm imposed by intrusions upon seclusion,” said Muccio’s attorney. “The same is true here.” As such, Muccio submits Dickson as supplemental authority, he said.

Plaintiff Mario Vega voluntary dismissed with prejudice his Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Wells Fargo Bank, said his notice Monday (docket 3:22-cv-01697) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Since Vega’s May 4 settlement notice, the parties have “fully resolved” the dispute, it said. U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia’s Jan. 3 order granted the parties’ joint motion to send the dispute to arbitration and staying the case pending the outcome of that arbitration (see 2301040003).

The Republican National Committee embarked on an unsolicited text message campaign, causing injuries to plaintiff Jacob Howard and members of his potential class, “including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion,” alleged Howard’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Sunday (docket 2:23-cv-00993) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. The text messages were sent without regard to whether the RNC “first obtained express permission from the text messaged party,” it said. It seeks an injunction to halt the RNC’s “illegal conduct,” it said. The RNC didn’t comment.

LoanDepot moved Thursday to dismiss the “abandoned call” count of plaintiff Zachary Sawicki’s second amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action for failure to state a claim, said the mortgage lender’s motion (docket 2:22-cv-14425) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. Under the TCPA, a call is deemed abandoned if it’s not connected to a live sales rep within two seconds of the called person’s completed greeting. Sawicki's abandoned call claim should be dismissed because there’s no private right of action to enforce that provision in the statute, said the motion. Even if there were, Sawicki doesn’t actually allege facts “demonstrating he received more than one such call in a 12-month period,” it said. Lacking a private right of action, Sawicki can’t file a lawsuit to enforce the abandoned call provision, it said. “The FCC has the exclusive authority to enforce this regulation.”