In Buchholz v. Valarity, LLC, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling his cell phone with an ATDS and without consent. After defendant produced evidence that plaintiff had consented by providing the cell number to the medical provider, plaintiff argued that the consent had been orally revoked. The court concluded that plaintiff was able to revoke consent to be called, and that an oral revocation was effective.
In Millard v. Northland, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s FDCPA complaint, and rather than filing an amended complaint, plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case. Defendant then moved for recovery of its fees and costs, arguing that the action was brought in bad faith and for harassment. The court denied the motion, finding that there was insufficient evidence of bad faith on plaintiff’s part, despite the fact that the case was properly dismissed at the pleading stage when there was no evidence that plaintiff knew the claims lacked merit buy still continued to prosecute those claims.
In Crawford v. Target, plaintiff alleged that defendant violated the TCPA by calling her cell phone with an ATDS and without consent. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient factual support to plausibly state claim, including a failure to provide the cell number that was allegedly being called. The court denied the motion, finding that the allegations that plaintiff received up to 4 calls a day beginning on a specific date was sufficient to state a claim, as supported by allegations that the calls were often preceded by silence before a live representative came on the line, and that plaintiff was not required to state the cell number that was being called to state a claim.► Back to News & Resources