In Olson v. Midland, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the FDCPA by sending a privacy notice to him directly when defendant knew that he was represented by counsel The district court dismissed the claim, and plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the sending of the privacy notice was not a communication attempting to collect a debt, and therefore did not need to be sent to plaintiff’s attorney.
In Padilla v. Whetstone Partners, plaintiff alleged that defendant called his cell phone with a dialer and without consent in violation of the TCPA. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that he was actually called by a dialer. The court agreed, and dismissed the case, though plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint with more robust description of the nature of the calls. For example, the court felt plaintiff should be able to allege the content of a pre-recorded message, to describe whether there was a pause when answering the call or any other facts to support his allegations that a dialer was used.
In Cunningham v. Alliance Security, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone with a pre-recorded voice, without consent, and attempting to sell him a security system. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff had already filed, and lost, the same case in a different district court. The court denied the motion, finding that the complaint, on its face, appeared to involve different factual allegations against a different defendant, and therefore was not barred.
► Back to News & Resources
