A tentative settlement was reached in Tampa consumer Tyler DeSouza’s class action alleging home medical supply company AeroCare Holdings violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, said a mediator’s report Thursday (docket 6:22-cv-01047) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. The parties’ attorneys are preparing the “proposed settlement documentation” for the court’s review and approval, said the report. DeSouza alleged AeroCare sent weekly text message solicitations to a number that he listed on the national do-not-call registry since November 2015.

Vendors of defendant loanDepot began placing “voluminous” marketing solicitation calls in November to plaintiff Zachary Sawicki’s cellphone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, said Sawicki’s first amended class action Monday (docket 2:22-cv-14425) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. His amended complaint drops “John Does 1-10," representing third-party agents phoning Sawicki on loanDepot’s behalf, after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the original complaint for violating court rules against fictitious party pleading (see 2301040005). LoanDepot hasn't answered Sawicki’s allegations, but it challenged the TCPA’s constitutionality when it answered an unrelated Texas complaint (see 2212200014).

Verizon’s debt collector, CBE Customer Solutions, “cannot state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or unjust enrichment under the facts it has pled here,” said Verizon’s reply memorandum Friday (docket 1:22-cv-08703) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. Verizon alleges CBE refused to reimburse it for costs incurred defending a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action that arose from CBE’s negligence. CBE countersued, alleging any negligence that mushroomed into a TCPA class action and settlement was of Verizon’s doing, not CBE’s (see 2212140027). CBE’s unjust enrichment claim “is nothing more than a thinly disguised breach-of-contract claim that attempts to imbue a commercial agreement negotiated between two sophisticated parties with conditions and obligations that they did not bargain for,” said Verizon’s Friday reply. “New York law does not countenance such an outcome.” The court should enter judgment on the pleadings in Verizon’s favor, and dismiss CBE’s counterclaims against Verizon “in their entirety,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce signed an order Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-14356) dismissing without prejudice plaintiff Gwendolyn Haviland’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against e-commerce site JessicaSimpson.com. Haviland’s Oct. 18 complaint alleged she was inundated with telemarketing text messages without her consent and said the solicitations gave her no means for opting out (see 2210190040).

Make America Great Again, a political action committee headquartered in Beverly, Massachusetts, bombarded Rafael Santana and other Arizonans with an“intrusive" automated text messaging campaign to promote the candidacy of Republican Kari Lake for Arizona governor, alleged Santana’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-00071) in U.S. District Court in Phoenix. The text messages included a video file that was automatically downloaded to Santana’s phone and contained an artificial or prerecorded voice, it said. Santana never gave MAGA “his express consent to be contacted by telephone using an artificial or prerecorded voice,” it said. The text messages didn't provide “any identifiable characteristic of the intended recipient” but were drafted so they could be “sent out en masse without variation,” the filing said. Santana doesn’t know the number of members in the proposed class but believes they number at least in the thousands, it said, if not tens-of-thousands. Efforts to reach the PAC for comment Friday were unsuccessful. Lake lost the Nov. 8 election to Democrat Katie Hobbs by 17,000 votes.

A jury trial on plaintiff Catherine Migliano’s claims that Parler violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is to start during the two-week trial calendar beginning March 11, 2024, said an order signed Wednesday (docket 0:22-cv-61805) by U.S. District Judge Roy Altman for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. His order sets a Nov. 14 deadline for completing all expert and fact discovery. Parler denies Migliano’s assertions it waived its “contractual right” to arbitrate her dispute when it failed to renew its motion to compel after she filed her amended complaint (see 2212290019).

Vintage Stock removed to U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri in St. Louis the Dec. 4 class action (docket 4:23-cv-42) in which plaintiffs Sheila and Dennis Thompson alleged the home entertainment retailer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related Missouri state law by sending unsolicited text messages. The defendant doesn't admit to any of the allegations in the complaint, nor does it waive any defenses that may be available, including plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim, said the Wednesday notice of removal.

Plaintiff Jamil Hindi’s first amended complaint Wednesday (docket 0:22-cv-62219) alleging Modani violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act deletes the allegation in his original Nov. 28 complaint that accused the furniture retailer also of Florida Telephone Solicitation Act wrongdoing. This after defendant Modani’s Dec. 30 motion to dismiss Hindi’s FTSA claims on grounds that the statute is unconstitutional for restricting First Amendment speech (see 2301030038). Hindi’s filing of his first amended complaint prompted U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale to sign an order Thursday denying the motion to dismiss as moot. Hours after the judge’s order, Hindi and Modani filed a joint notice of settlement with the court, asserting they were now “in the process of finalizing the terms of the settlement.” They asked the court to vacate all pending deadlines and to allow them 60 days to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

Plaintiff Christopher Atanasoff and Wells Fargo Bank reached agreement to refer Atanasoff’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act dispute to binding arbitration, said their joint motion and stipulation Monday (docket 3:22-cv-01698) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. They asked that Atanasoff’s action be stayed in its entirety until the arbitration process is complete. Atanasoff alleged Wells Fargo phoned him more than 60 times to collect an old credit card debt after receiving a cease and desist from his lawyer (see 2211210012).

Plaintiff Thomas Gebka wrongly seeks to hold State Farm liable for calls it didn't make that he claims violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said State Farm Friday in a memorandum of law (docket 1:22-cv-05546) in support of its motion to dismiss Gebka’s amended complaint. Gebka “fails to allege any facts to support any vicarious liability theory that could hold State Farm liable for those calls,” it said. In other previous litigation, he attributed some of the calls alleged against State Farm to Allstate, the memo said. He also “invited the balance of the calls, ostensibly to seek insurance quotes from State Farm independent contractor agents,” it said. As a result, Gebka “fails to establish the requisite standing to sue State Farm,” it said.