Larissia Hall of Lakewood, Colorado, began receiving “consistent and repeated” phone calls Dec. 27 from Systems & Services Technologies, a debt collection agency, after she met with unforeseen financial hardship and fell behind in her payments on an $8,500 personal loan from Goldman Sachs Bank, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint Thursday (docket 8:24-cv-00424) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. Hall estimates receiving no fewer than 50 debt collection calls from the agency through January and February, despite her multiple demands that the agency stop calling, said her complaint. Systems & Services placed its calls to Hall’s cellphone using prerecorded messaging technology, “a dialing system that is commonly used in the credit collection industry to collect allegedly defaulted debt,” it said. The system the agency used to place calls to Hall “has the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to determine the order in which to pick phone numbers from a preloaded list of numbers of consumers that are allegedly in default on their payments,” it said. There would be no reason for the agency to continue contacting Hall, “especially after having been notified to cease all telephone communications,” it said. Yet the agency’s phone system continued to keep Hall’s phone number stored, “causing its system to randomly and sequentially dial the number dozens of times thereafter,” it said. Frustrated with the agency’s “harassing conduct,” Hall spoke with her attorneys regarding her rights, “resulting in exhausting further time and resources,” it said. The agency’s “unfair and harassing conduct” has severely disrupted Hall’s “daily life and general well-being,” it said. She has suffered concrete harm, including invasion of privacy, aggravation that accompanies collection calls and emotional distress, it said. In addition to the agency’s TCPA wrongdoing, Hall alleges violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for its unlawful conduct.

A debt relief services provider denies Yazmin Gonzalez’s allegations that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Texas Business and Commerce Code by calling her incessantly to promote its services, said its answer Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00436) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in El Paso. Gonzalez estimates she received at least 27 calls from Countrywide Legal Group between Sept. 13 and Nov. 11, to a number she listed on the national do not call registry in February 2023 (see 2312020001). But Countrywide contends Gonzalez’s claims are barred because to the extent the subject calls occurred, such calls “were invited, permitted, consented to, and/or made pursuant to a personal or an established business relationship,” said its answer. It alleges the plaintiff “seeks out, invites, and welcomes” solicitation calls “in an effort to manufacture and pursue litigation.” She does so “not to seek compensation for damages allegedly suffered, as contemplated by statute, but rather to seek to enrich herself by seeking disproportionate payments” from TCPA defendants, said its answer.

Motive Technologies engages in a campaign to market its trucking logistics services through the use of prerecorded telemarketing calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged Joseph Bond’s class action Wednesday (docket 3:24-cv-01215) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Bond never consented to receive calls from Motive, but the company nevertheless called his cellphone twice in early January, said the complaint. Bond contacted Motive about the prerecorded calling, and the company didn’t deny making the calls, it said. The telemarketing calls invaded the plaintiff’s privacy and solitude, wasted his time and tied up his phone line, the complaint said.

A Westland, Michigan, business violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited fax advertisements to promote its goods and services to would-be customers without their consent, alleged plaintiff William Gress’ class action Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-01641) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The Embroidery Shoppe either negligently or willfully violated the rights of Gress and other recipients in sending the faxes, said the complaint. The TCPA “expressly prohibits” unsolicited fax advertising because it damages the recipients, who are deprived of paper and toner and the authorized use of their fax machines, it said. There’s “no reasonable means” for Gress or other recipients to avoid receiving illegal fax advertisements, it said. Fax machines “must be left on and ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners,” it said.

Vintage Stock opposes the plaintiffs' Feb. 12 motion to remand the dismissed count II of their first amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint to the Missouri state court where it originated before the home entertainment retailer removed it in January 2023 (see 2402130004), said the retailer's memorandum in opposition Monday (docket 4:23-cv-00042) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri in St. Louis. In dismissing count II without prejudice, the judge found that Sheila and Dennis Thompson lacked standing to bring the allegation that Vintage Stock failed to institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to be called. The Thompsons contend the judge improperly dismissed count II without prejudice, and that based on 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, the judge should remand count II to state court. But Vintage Stock asks that the motion, which it interprets as “effectively a motion for reconsideration” of the judge’s order, be denied, said its memorandum. The claim “was properly dismissed for lack of standing,” the defendant said. Remand of a single claim where two others remain in federal court also “is futile and would needlessly increase the burden on the parties and courts,” it said. As a preliminary matter, the claim was dismissed without prejudice and the Thompsons may refile count II in state court if they choose, it said. But doing so would render the Thompsons’ remand motion “all the more unnecessary,” it said. Even if the Thompsons refiled count II in state court, “it would still be dismissed for lack of standing,” it said.

James Shelton alleges that Fluce AI and its owner, Ralph Cohen, made unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls to him and others without their prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said his class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-01429) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn. Because the calls were transmitted using technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, Shelton sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls, said his complaint. Fluce offers a service that’s used to make tens of thousands of automated sales calls using AI software provided by third parties Amazon and Twilio, it said. To generate leads and find potential customers interested in using its services, Fluce makes telemarketing calls using AI chatbots to consumers who have never had a relationship with the company and who have never consented to receive the calls, it said. Fluce placed at least four such calls to Shelton’s cellphone on Feb. 8, said the complaint. Shelton and members of the class have been harmed by Fluce’s acts “because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and, in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls,” it said. The calls also occupied their phone lines, rendering them unavailable for legitimate communication, it said.

Crown Roofing & Solar denies the allegations in plaintiff Alissa Hoheisel’s Dec. 22 class action that it places unsolicited telemarketing phone calls to consumers without their consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2312230001), said the roofing company’s answer Monday (docket 2:23-cv-02563) in U.S. District Court for Kansas in Kansas City. Hoheisel alleges receiving multiple unwanted calls from Crown Roofing & Solar in November, though her number has been listed on the national do not call registry since June 2010. But Hoheisel fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, said the company in the only affirmative defense it asserts in its answer.

Great Western Insurance Co. denies the allegations in Micheal Welch’s Feb. 1 class action that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (see 2402020002), said the insurer’s answer Friday (docket 6:24-cv-00234) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. Welch alleges that Great Western engages in unsolicited marketing, “harming thousands of consumers in the process.” He further alleges that all of Great Western’s violations “were knowing, willful, and intentional,” and that it didn’t maintain procedures “reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation.” But Great Western’s answer asserts 31 affirmative defenses, including that the TCPA’s safe harbor provision bars Welch’s claims. Great Western also contends that the plaintiff “expressly or impliedly consented to and approved all the acts and omissions about which he now complains,” said its answer. Great Western also denies engaging in willful or knowing TCPA misconduct, and it contends that any of Welch’s alleged injuries “are the result of the conduct of an entity or entities that acted outside the scope of their agency” or breached “relevant contractual provisions” for which Great Western can’t be held responsible, it said. The insurer further contends that Welch’s claims on behalf of the putative class are barred because his case isn’t maintainable as a class action under Rule 23, said its answer.

Milwaukee resident George Madison ran up a $3,000 debt for unpaid apartment rent, sparking the Hunter Warfield agency to begin making debt collection calls to Madison’s cellphone number, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged Madison’s complaint Friday (docket 8:24-cv-00486) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Madison told the agency he was financially unable to pay the debt and asked the company to cease all calls to his cellphone, said the complaint. But the agency has “disregarded those demands” and has continued placing the calls, it said. Madison has been “unfairly and unnecessarily harassed” by the agency’s actions, it said. He has suffered “concrete harm,” including invasion of privacy, aggravation that accompanies unwanted collection calls and emotional distress, said his complaint. In addition to the agency’s TCPA wrongdoing, Madison alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act.

Plaintiffs Sheila and Dennis Thompson are "precluded" from recovering any damages from Vintage Stock for a willful or knowing Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation, said the home entertainment retailer’s answer Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-00042) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri in St. Louis to the Thompsons’ March 1 first amended complaint. Any such violation, which Vintage Stock denies occurred, wouldn’t have been willful or knowing, “but instead would have been unintentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable efforts to fully comply with the law,” said its answer. The Thompsons allege Vintage Stock sent them dozens of promotional text messages over several years. They’re currently seeking to remand count II of their first amended complaint to St. Louis County Circuit Court where the complaint originated before Vintage Stock removed it from federal court in January 2023. Their remand motion came days after U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark granted Vintage Stock’s motion to dismiss without prejudice that count of the Thompsons’ complaint (see 2402090027). The judge found that the Thompsons lacked standing to bring the count II allegation that Vintage Stock failed to institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to be called.