The Kennedy Privacy Law Firm
|
|
- Mercy Todd
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Kennedy Privacy Law Firm th Street, NW Washington, DC Charles H. Kennedy Phone: (202) Mobile: (202) April 28, 2016 emarketing Newsletter: Special Report on FCC Petition Concerning Calls to Business Telephones As I briefly discussed in my Privacy and emarketing Newsletter of April 4, 2016, the FCC has asked for comment on a petition filed by Todd C. Bank, an attorney in New York State, who wants the Commission to declare that a caller can be liable under the TCPA for making a prerecorded marketing call to a residential number at which the called party conducts a business. A favorable FCC ruling on Bank s petition would substantially increase the risks faced by companies when they call persons who conduct business from their homes. Because the issues are so significant, and because comments must be filed by May 17, 2016, 1 I m using this Newsletter to say more about the Bank petition. What Todd Bank Wants Todd C. Bank calls himself the annoyance lawyer, not because his own behavior is annoying (although a case for that can be 1 Initial comments are due May 2, 2016, but reply comments may be filed on or before May 17. Parties are not required to file initial comments as a condition of filing reply comments. 2 Bank describes his practice at made), but because he files lawsuits against people who annoy him. 2 For example, when a judge demanded that he remove a baseball cap in court, Bank sued the court on the ground that the judge was violating his First Amendment rights. Obviously, Bank is an easy man to annoy. In January, 2012, Bank was annoyed by a prerecorded telephone call from a marketer representing Independence Energy, which was selling retail electrical service. Bank filed a purported class-action complaint on behalf of himself and all others who received these calls on their residential telephone lines. The complaint alleged violations of 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(B), which prohibits anyone from initiating any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party The complaint also cites the FCC s regulation at 47 CFR (a)(2), which requires prior express consent for automated calls placed to emergency, healthcare and mobile numbers. This regulation does not refer to calls to residential lines and does not implement TCPA section 227(b)(1)(B), the TCPA 1
2 If Bank hoped for a quick settlement of this class-action claim, that hope was dashed when the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Bank s phone was not a residential line because Bank listed the number on his stationery, his website and in court filings as a business number. The court agreed with Independence Energy that if a telephone number is held out to the public as a business line, callers should be able to rely on that representation even if (as Bank alleged) the number is registered with the telephone service provider as residential. The court therefore permitted the defendant to take discovery into the ways in which Bank used and publicized the number to which the challenged calls were made. After discovery was concluded, the court found that Bank did, in fact, use and publicize his telephone number for business purposes. Accordingly, the court dismissed Bank s complaint. This setback sent Bank to the FCC, where he now asks the Commission to adopt what he calls a bright-line test: If a telephone number is registered with the user s telephone service provider as residential, then it is residential for TCPA purposes even if the subscriber uses the number for business purposes and advertises it as such. 4 Bank apparently believes that if his petition succeeds, the task of class action lawyers in cases like his will be simplified. Courts could be expected to follow the bright-line test on the ground that the Commission, as an expert agency, had adopted the test as an exercise of its authority to interpret an ambiguous section on which the complaint is based. My best guess is that Bank intended to cite 47 CFR (a)(3), which prohibits the initiation of commercial calls, using an artificial or prerecorded voice, to any residential line without the called party s prior express consent. Assuming this citation is an error, Bank makes it consistently, referring to 47 CFR (a)(2) in his court filings and in his FCC petition. statutory provision. So, if a plaintiff could allege (and submit evidence to prove, in the event of a defendant s summary judgment motion) that the defendant called a number registered as residential with the telephone service provider, the plaintiff s case could proceed even if the plaintiff used and advertised the number as a business number. In such a case, a defendant might prefer to write a check to the plaintiff s attorney rather than incur the expense of further litigation. The Case against Bank s Petition The order Bank wants would be inconsistent with Congress s decision, when it wrote the TCPA, to grant businesses a lower level of protection from prerecorded calls than it gave to residential subscribers. That decision was confirmed by the FCC when it adopted rules to implement the TCPA: Commenters express concern that prerecorded message calls will affect public health and safety and impede commerce. Most commenters, however, do not raise privacy concerns with respect to prerecorded calls to businesses. Based on the record and on the scope of the prohibitions on autodialers and prerecorded messages in the rules we adopt today, we are not persuaded that additional prohibitions on prerecorded voice message calls to businesses are necessary at this time. 5 The FCC has not revisited, much less reversed, this decision since it wrote its first 4 In support of this suggestion, Bank cites an unpublished decision by a state trial judge in Missouri that adopted a registration test. 5 In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 7 FCC Rcd 8752, n. 7 at 8756 (1992). 2
3 TCPA regulations in Bank effectively is asking the FCC to extend a novel level of privacy protection to telephone lines that are used and publicized as business contact information, but that happen to be registered as residential. Banks s proposed bright-line test is meaningless, unadministrable and so unfair in the present business and regulatory environment as to raise questions of due process and free speech rights. A full understanding of the petition s defects requires us to explore some history. When the TCPA was written, local telephone numbers were assigned exclusively by the subscribers Bell telephone or other monopoly service provider, and were published in telephone directories with separate business and residential listings. A business could not obtain a vital listing in the Yellow Pages, or in the business section of the White Pages, unless it ordered (in Todd Bank s parlance, registered ) a business line with the phone company at the premium rate charged for such lines. In this monopoly environment, when a business gave out a telephone number on its business cards, in advertising or otherwise, callers could confidently assume that it was listed with the serving telephone company as a business number. There was a negligible risk of inadvertently placing a prerecorded commercial call to a business that was using a line classified as residential in the telephone company s tariffs. The environment of 1991 no longer exists. Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 authorized competition in local telephone service, telephone numbers have been assigned by various competitive service providers, including Voice over Internet Protocol companies. Many of those providers do not publish directories, do not make their customers numbers available for publication in third-party directories, and do not police whether their subscribers are using their services for business or residential purposes. In this environment, it is meaningless to suggest that a caller be liable for placing a prerecorded call to a line that is registered as residential with a service provider. A record of such registration may not exist and may not be accessible by the caller if it does exist. There would simply be no way for a caller to comply reliably with Bank s bright-line test. An example should show how pointless Bank s proposed rule is in the present environment. Suppose that I have a real estate business that I conduct from my home. I contact Vonage, a Voice over Internet Protocol provider, and arrange for a landline telephone service that will be associated with an IP address and routed through the broadband Internet access service at my home. At signup, I select a calling plan based on the volume of calls I expect to make and receive; I also can select various features, such as call forwarding and delivery of voic to my inbox. Vonage advertises some of the available calling plans as home packages; others are advertised as business packages. However, many businesses will find a home package adequate for their needs, and some high-volume home users might find a business plan useful. Vonage doesn t know or care how I will use the plan and the features I select; the labels are purely marketing devices. Vonage also does not publish a telephone directory and does not submit its customers telephone numbers to third-party directories 3
4 or 411 listings. 6 So, unless I volunteer the information, only Vonage and I know which plan I selected. Now, I set up a website to advertise my real estate business, where I solicit business calls to be made to my Vonage number. The Vonage number also appears on my business card, yard signs and advertisements in local media. An employee of a community newspaper, interested in selling me ad space, leaves a prerecorded message at my Vonage number. Can I sue the newspaper for violating the TCPA by making a prerecorded call to a residential line? According to Bank, the answer depends, not upon how I use or advertise my Vonage line, but upon whether I registered it as residential with Vonage. But, what does it mean to register a line as residential with a service like Vonage, which permits its customers to use its services for any purpose they choose? Does my selection of a home calling plan make my Vonage service a residential line for purposes of the TCPA, even though the line is used exclusively for business? What if I used the Vonage phone only for personal calls, but selected a business plan because it offered some feature, such as unlimited international calling, that matched my personal calling habits? Would I then lose the benefit of the TCPA prohibition against prerecorded marketing calls to residential lines? (Remember that according to the FCC, Congress intended to extend a lower level of privacy protection to businesses not calling plans.) The picture would be even murkier if I signed up with a service provider that did not label its calling plans as home or business. In 6 See a court that followed the Bank rule, I would be unable to argue that I had registered my line as residential, business or anything else. As the example shows, the supposed brightline test that Bank proposes would not simplify TCPA litigation at all. A plaintiff s claim that he or she had registered a line as residential would require an inquiry into the business arrangement between the plaintiff and service provider, and the possible application of the term registration to those facts. This inquiry would be no simpler than the exploration into the actual use of the plaintiff s service that the court permitted in Bank s unsuccessful lawsuit. More importantly, even if a coherent registration rule could be formulated, callers would in many cases have no way to determine which category of service a business had selected. As noted earlier, the days when every business number could be found in a directory that listed the number as business or residential are long gone. Callers should not have to act at their peril when they rely upon a called party s own business card, advertising, website information or other data inviting business calls to be placed to a specified number. Whether a number is a business number should depend upon how the subscriber advertises and uses that number not upon a non-public business record in the keeping of the subscriber s service provider. Finally, the implications of a favorable ruling on the Bank s petition could go well beyond the prerecorded call rule. At present, only residential numbers are eligible to be placed on the national do-not-call registry, and marketing calls to business numbers are lawful, even if the subscribers holding those numbers have placed them on the registry. However, if the Commission should agree 79/~/phone-book-and-411-directory-assistancelistings. 4
5 with Bank that a number used for business is residential if it is registered as such with the service provider, the result might be that home businesses will place their numbers on the do-not-call list and sue callers for placing live or prerecorded marketing calls to those numbers. Companies that market to businesses might then be required to scrub the business numbers in their calling databases against the national do-not-call registry, or face a whole new category of calls-action suits. Given the stakes, it is important that the record before the Commission include comments opposing the Bank petition. Otherwise, it cannot be assumed that the Commission will reject it. As always, please be aware that nothing in this Newsletter is legal advice. Please let me know if you want off my mailing list by ing me at ckennedy@kennedyonprivacy.com, where I m also interested in receiving questions and comments. 5
Case 2:16-cv SGC Document 1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:16-cv-02017-SGC Document 1 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 13 FILED 2016 Dec-16 AM 09:38 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually
More informationTCPA COMPLIANCE IN THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY:
TCPA COMPLIANCE IN THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY: UNDERSTANDING AND MITIGATING RISKS DEREK KEARL, PARTNER INTRODUCTION DEREK KEARL jdkearl@hollandhart.com www.linkedin.com/in/derekkearl 801.799.5857 www.hhhealthlawblog.com
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 118-cv-02310 Document # 1 Filed 03/30/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PHILIP CHARVAT and ANDREW PERRONG, on behalf of themselves
More informationCompliance & Ethics ACC LQH:
Compliance & Ethics ACC LQH: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): A Map for the Liability Minefield May 17, 2016 Douglas G. Bonner Attorney Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice Andrea T. Shandell Associate
More informationCase 6:16-cv CEM-GJK Document 42 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID 161 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:16-cv-01478-CEM-GJK Document 42 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID 161 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION JIM YOUNGMAN and ROBERT ALLEN, individually and on
More informationNOW THAT THE TCPA DUST HAS SETTLED
NOW THAT THE TCPA DUST HAS SETTLED Calling Solutions for Landlines, Cells and Text for the ARM Industry Your Presenters Rozanne Andersen Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer Ontario Systems Rip
More informationThe Telephone Consumer Protection Act Overview
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Overview October 26, 2015 CLIENT ALERT November 23, 2015 Richard P. Eckman eckmanr@pepperlaw.com Timothy R. McTaggart mctaggartt@pepperlaw.com Philip (PJ) Hoffman
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. COMMENTS OF THE COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (CCIA)
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 CG Docket No. 02-278 Petition for Expedited
More informationAttorneys for Plaintiff Betty Gregory and the Putative Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Helen I. Zeldes (SBN 00) COAST LAW GROUP, LLP 0 S. Coast Hwy 0 Encinitas, CA 0 Tel: (0) -0 Fax: (0) - helen@coastlaw.com Tammy Gruder Hussin (SBN 0)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:17-cv-00383-C Document 1 Filed 04/05/17 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 1. ROBERT H. BRAVER, for himself and all individuals similarly situated,
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 8 Filed: 08/30/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:20
Case: 1:17-cv-05472 Document #: 8 Filed: 08/30/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT MICHAEL KAISER-NYMAN, individually
More informationCase 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-00798 Document 1 Filed 04/15/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No.: Joseph Bobko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
More informationThe Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA )
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ) Recent Developments and Takeaways from the Oral Argument in the Appeal Challenging the FCC s Interpretations of the Act Charles E. Harris II Partner charris@mayerbrown.com
More information2:17-cv MFL-SDD Doc # 1 Filed 03/30/17 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (Southern Division)
217-cv-11018-MFL-SDD Doc # 1 Filed 03/30/17 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (Southern Division) JASON BALLANTYNE on behalf of himself and others similarly
More informationCase 1:09-cv JTC Document 28 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 11. Plaintiffs, 09-CV-982-JTC. Defendant.
Case 1:09-cv-00982-JTC Document 28 Filed 02/24/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARIA SANTINO and GIUSEPPE SANTINO, Plaintiffs, -vs- 09-CV-982-JTC NCO FINANCIAL
More informationTitle 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE
Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE Chapter 225: TELEPHONE SOLICITATION Table of Contents Part 3. REGULATION OF TRADE... Section 1498. AUTOMATED TELEPHONE SOLICITATION PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS; PENALTIES... 3 Section
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Durham Division FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 1:14-cv-00333-CCE-JEP Document 32 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Durham Division THOMAS H. KRAKAUER, on behalf of a class
More informationCHAPTER Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 654
CHAPTER 2003-32 Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 654 An act relating to regulation of telecommunications companies; providing a popular name; amending s. 364.01, F.S.; providing legislative finding
More informationTelephone Consumer Protection Act Proposed Amendments by TRACED Act 47 U.S.C.A Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
Telephone Consumer Protection Act Proposed Amendments by TRACED Act 47 U.S.C.A. 227 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment (a) Definitions As used in this section-- (1) The term automatic telephone
More informationCase 2:18-cv KJM-DB Document 1 Filed 09/21/18 Page 1 of 9
Case :-cv-00-kjm-db Document Filed 0// Page of 0 BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. ) 0 North California Blvd., Suite 0 Walnut Creek, CA Telephone: () 00- Facsimile: () 0-00 E-Mail:
More informationTelephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA )
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ) The Basics, Recent Regulatory Changes, and Class-Action Litigation Implications January 7, 2014 E. Andrew Keeney, Esq. Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. E. Andrew Keeney,
More informationThe Kennedy Privacy Law Firm
The Kennedy Privacy Law Firm 1050 30 th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 www.kennedyonprivacy.com Charles H. Kennedy Phone: (202) 250-3704 Mobile: (202) 450-0708 ckennedy@kennedyonprivacy.com January 2,
More informationCase: 4:16-cv JAR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/10/16 Page: 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
Case: 4:16-cv-00646-JAR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 05/10/16 Page: 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION Christina Kinnamon, individually and
More informationBEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING TO CLARIFY THE SCOPE OF RULE 64.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 In the Matter of: Todd C. Bank Docket Number: Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify the Scope of Rule 64.l200(a)(2) PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
More informationDecember 1, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING. Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554
1615 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20062 www.uschamber.com VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: In the Matter
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN -- SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:14-cv-10644-MFL-RSW Doc # 22 Filed 10/24/14 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 177 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN -- SOUTHERN DIVISION GERALDINE WENGLE, Individually and on behalf others
More informationBe it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: Section 1. KRS is amended to read as follows:
0 0 AN ACT relating to caller identification. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky: Section. KRS. is amended to read as follows: It is a prohibited telephone solicitation
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No.: Plaintiff, v.
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Page ID #: FISCHER AVENUE, UNIT D COSTA MESA, CA 0 Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: ) ak@kazlg.com Matthew M. Loker, Esq. (SBN: ) ml@kazlg.com Fischer Avenue, Unit
More informationCase 1:19-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2019 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:19-cv-20285-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/21/2019 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA NATASCHA AABBOTT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This matter is before the Court on the parties cross-motions for Summary
CASE 0:16-cv-00173-PAM-ECW Document 105 Filed 11/13/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Stewart L. Roark, Civ. No. 16-173 (PAM/ECW) Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Credit
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
0 0 Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: ) josh@westcoastlitigation.com Yana A. Hart, Esq. (SBN: 0) yana@westcoastlitigation.com HYDE & SWIGART Camino Del Rio South, Suite 0 San Diego, CA 0 Telephone: () -0 Facsimile:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0-rsr Document Entered on FLSD Docket 0//0 Page of 0 Douglas J. Campion (State Bar No. doug@djcampion.com LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC 0 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 0 San Diego, CA
More informationBEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC COMMENTS OF THE RETAIL ENERGY SUPPLY ASSOCIATION
BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20554 In the Matter of Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Light
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau ) CG Docket No. 18-152 Seeks Comment on Interpretation of the Telephone
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO : : : : : : : : : : :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Janine LaVigne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, First Community Bancshares, Inc.; First Community Bank; DOES 1-10,
More informationCase 9:17-cv DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/04/2017 Page 1 of 20
Case 9:17-cv-80794-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/04/2017 Page 1 of 20 ALAN MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
More informationCase 2:15-cv JMA-SIL Document 34 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 221 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 2:15-cv-04106-JMA-SIL Document 34 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 221 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PHILIP J. CHARVAT and SABRINA WHEELER, individually and
More informationCase 3:15-cv PGS-TJB Document 15 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:15-cv-05881-PGS-TJB Document 15 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID: 84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NOREEN SUSINNO, individually and of behalf of all others similarly
More informationCase 3:15-cv JAM Document 26 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
Case 3:15-cv-00824-JAM Document 26 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PETER LUNDSTEDT, Plaintiff, v. No. 3:15-cv-00824 (JAM) I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00-ben-ags Document Filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 0 James R. Patterson, SBN 0 Allison H. Goddard, SBN 0 Jacquelyn E. Quinn, SBN PATTERSON LAW GROUP 0 Columbia Street, Suite 0 San Diego, CA 0 Tel:
More informationRecent Trends in TCPA Regulations and Litigation
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Steamroller By Jennifer Bagg and Amy E. Richardson Recent Trends in TCPA Regulations and Litigation In-house and outside counsel need to comprehend the act s legal
More informationCase 9:18-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 1 of 10. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No.
Case 9:18-cv-80605-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. Shelli Buhr, on behalf of herself and others similarly
More informationCase: 1:15-cv Document #: 113 Filed: 10/11/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:947
Case: 1:15-cv-08504 Document #: 113 Filed: 10/11/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:947 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MARSHALL SPIEGEL, individually and on )
More informationCase 5:16-cv AB-DTB Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:192 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 5:16-cv-00339-AB-DTB Document 43 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:192 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No.: ED CV 16-00339-AB (DTBx)
More informationCase 8:17-cv CEH-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1
Case 8:17-cv-01890-CEH-JSS Document 1 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION CASE NO. JOHN NORTHRUP, Individually and
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) and the STATES of ) CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS, ) NORTH CAROLINA, and OHIO, ) ) Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 6:14-cv EFM Document 65 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:14-cv-01084-EFM Document 65 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS LEON E. LEE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 14-CV-01084-EFM LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, Defendant.
More information[Other Attorneys of Record Listed on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-cab-ksc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Joshua Swigart, Esq. (SBN: ) josh@westcoastlitigation.com Kevin Lemieux, Esq (SBN: ) kevin@westcoastlitigation.com HYDE AND SWIGART Camino Del Rio South,
More informationA state court in Missouri authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. SUMMARY
LONG FORM NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND FAIRNESS HEARING If you received a Fax Advertisement from Dentis USA Corporation d/b/a Dentis USA between September 16, 2012, and February 16, 2018, a class
More informationCase 3:18-cv M Document 1 Filed 06/11/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1
Case 3:18-cv-01494-M Document 1 Filed 06/11/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GLORIA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
More informationBefore The Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C
Before The Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Connect America Fund WC Docket No. 10-90 A National Broadband Plan for Our Future GN Docket No. 09-51 Establishing Just
More informationFILED 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Case 4:15-cv-00003-JLH Document 1 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 Jeremy Hutchinson, Esq. 6 Jonathan Camp, Esq. 7 HUTCHINSON LAW FIRM 1 E. North St. 8 Benton, AR 715 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Anthony
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Rules and Regulations Implementing the ) CG Docket No. CG 02-278 Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ) ) Petition
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:15-cv-03755-MHC Document 143 Filed 05/30/18 Page 1 of 52 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION SEBASTIAN CORDOBA, and RENÉ ) ROMERO, individually
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Melissa N. Thomas, v. Plaintiff, Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-11467 Judith E. Levy United States
More informationCase 3:12-cv GPC-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 9
Case :-cv-0-gpc-ksc Document Filed // Page of 0 Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: ) ak@kazlg.com Jason A. Ibey, Esq. (SBN: 0) jason@kazlg.com Telephone: (00) 00-0 Facsimile: (00) - HYDE & SWIGART Robert L.
More informationContact Your Customers with Confidence: Recent Developments in TCPA Litigation. Sean Wieber Bill O Neil
Contact Your Customers with Confidence: Recent Developments in TCPA Litigation Sean Wieber Bill O Neil Today s Presenters Sean Wieber Partner Chicago swieber@winston.com (312) 558-5769 Bill O Neil Partner
More informationTelephone Consumer Protection Act Proposed Amendments by Rep. Pallone 47 U.S.C.A Restrictions on use of telephone equipment
Telephone Consumer Protection Act Proposed Amendments by Rep. Pallone 47 U.S.C.A. 227 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment (a) Definitions As used in this section-- (1) The term robocall means
More information2838.] Syllabus of the Court
Charvat, Appellant, v. Dispatch Consumer Services, Inc. et al., Appellees. [Cite as Charvat v. Dispatch Consumer Serv., Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 505, 2002-Ohio- 2838.] Consumer protection? Telephone Consumer
More informationCase 4:18-cv O Document 1 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1
Case 4:18-cv-00790-O Document 1 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION DOYCE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:16-cv-02605-SDM-CPT Document 131 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2140 EILEEN NECE, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:16-cv-2605-T-23CPT
More information: : her undersigned attorneys, as and for her Complaint against the Defendant, alleges the following
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC C.K. Lee (CL 4086) Anne Seelig (AS 3976) 30 East 39 th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel. 212-465-1188 Fax 212-465-1181 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class UNITED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-04940-TWT Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION PATRICIA PETTIS, individually and on behalf of all
More informationCase 1:13-cv RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88
Case 1:13-cv-01235-RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88 TIFFANY STRAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CORINTHIAN COLLEGES,
More informationCase 1:17-cv RJS Document 2 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:17-cv-00133-RJS Document 2 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 15 Matthew Morrison, Esq. Utah State Bar Number 14562 1887 N 270 E Orem UT 84057 (801) 845-2581 matt@oremlawoffice.com Blake J. Dugger, Esq.*
More informationCase 0:18-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2018 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:18-cv-60043-KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2018 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MALCOLM CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
More informationC H A MB E R O F C O M ME R C E O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S OF A M E R IC A
C H A MB E R O F C O M ME R C E O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S OF A M E R IC A W I L L I A M L. K O V A C S S E N I O R V I C E P R E S I D E N T E N V I R O N M E N T, T E C H N O L O G Y & R E G U
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:17-cv-01166-R Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 1. BROOKE BOWES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
More information1:16-cv JES-JEH # 20 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
1:16-cv-01211-JES-JEH # 20 Page 1 of 14 E-FILED Friday, 10 March, 2017 01:31:34 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION ANDY
More informationCase 8:17-cv PX Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : : : : : : : : : : : :
Case 817-cv-00965-PX Document 1 Filed 04/06/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DAN BOGER on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff MARIAM,
More informationPlaintiff * CA KEVIN KATZ, et al * Honorable John M. Campbell ** * * * * * * * * * * * *
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM ADLER * Plaintiff * CA 03-8109 v. * KEVIN KATZ, et al * Honorable John M. Campbell Defendants * Initial Conference: Jan. 16, 2004, 9:30 AM **
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-fmo-sh Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Amir J. Goldstein (Cal. Bar No. 0) ajg@consumercounselgroup.com LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN Wilshire Blvd., Suite Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY AMY VIGGIANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED Civ. Action No. 17-0243-BRM-TJB Plaintiff, v. OPINION
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Rules and Regulations Implementing the ) CG Docket No. 02-278 Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ) ) Broadnet
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION JASON BENNETT, etc., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION 14-0330-WS-M ) BOYD BILOXI, LLC, etc., ) ) Defendant.
More informationCase 2:17-cv JNP-BCW Document 29 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
Case 2:17-cv-01203-JNP-BCW Document 29 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH R. FLOYD ASHER, v. Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION
More informationTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Charlottesville Division CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. Preliminary Statement
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Charlottesville Division CHRISTOPHER MORGAN, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, TRENTON DIVISION. Plaintiff, Hon. Freda L. Wolfson
Case 3:15-cv-05089-BRM-LHG Document 28 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 24 PageID: 229 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, TRENTON DIVISION MICHAEL DOBKIN, individually and on behalf
More informationWillard receives federal Universal Service Fund ( USF ) support as a cost company, not a price cap company.
Craig J. Brown Suite 250 1099 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Phone 303-992-2503 Facsimile 303-896-1107 Senior Associate General Counsel Via ECFS December 10, 2014 Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary
More informationApril 6, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING. Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission th Street, SW Washington, DC
1615 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20062-2000 www.uschamber.com April 6, 2015 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554
More informationPublic Notice, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Further Comment on
Jonathan Thessin Senior Counsel Center for Regulatory Compliance Phone: 202-663-5016 E-mail: Jthessin@aba.com October 24, 2018 Via ECFS Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 00) Stradella Road Los Angeles, CA 00 Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) - E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com Of Counsel to
More information[Other Attorneys of Record Listed on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 Joshua Swigart, Esq. (SBN: ) josh@westcoastlitigation.com Yana Hart, Esq (SBN: 0) yana@westcoastlitigation.com HYDE AND SWIGART Camino Del Rio South, Suite
More informationCase 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 17
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Todd Logan (SBN 0) tlogan@edelson.com EDELSON PC Bryant Street San Francisco, California Tel:..0 Fax:.. Attorneys for Plaintiff Holt and the Putative Class IN THE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-000-teh Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TERRY COUR II, Plaintiff, v. LIFE0, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-000-teh ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1211 Document #1568291 Filed: 08/17/2015 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT, INC., v.
More informationCase 1:09-cv Document 12 Filed 01/11/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:09-cv-07274 Document 12 Filed 01/11/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES A. MITCHEM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No: 09 C 7274 ) ILLINOIS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT covuxpp 1 Ali 8: 51 ll. MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDAu, ORLANDO DIVISION CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. Jury Trial Demanded
Case 6:17-cv-00690-PGB-TBS Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 10 PagelD 1 FLED UNITED STATES DISTRICT covuxpp 1 Ali 8: 51 ll MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDAu, ORLANDO DIVISION VICI rc-jt!.7j c f.;.:=:f.i2ict
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 1:17-cv-01188 Document 1 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SCOTT BORECKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: Filed: 11/07/11 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:2498
Case: 1:10-cv-01846 Document #: 254-1 Filed: 11/07/11 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:2498 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION The case is titled Joanne F.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION : : : : : : : : : : : :
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION E-FILED Friday, 10 June, 2016 023444 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD Andy Aguilar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION
0 0 TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 00) 0 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 00- Phoenix, AZ 0 Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) - E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com Of Counsel to Lemberg Law, LLC A Connecticut Law Firm
More informationUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California
United States District Court for the Northern District of California IF YOU RECEIVED A NON-EMERGENCY MORTGAGE OR CREDIT CARD DEFAULT SERVICING CALL OR TEXT ON YOUR CELLULAR TELEPHONE FROM BANK OF AMERICA
More informationCase 1:15-cv JG-JO Document 1 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
Case 1:15-cv-04858-JG-JO Document 1 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TODD C. BANK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
More informationCase 9:18-cv RLR Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2018 Page 1 of 13
Case 9:18-cv-80605-RLR Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2018 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:18-cv-80605-RLR Shelli Buhr, on behalf of herself
More informationCase 3:05-cv MLC-JJH Document 138 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:05-cv-05858-MLC-JJH Document 138 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE AT&T ACCESS CHARGE : Civil Action No.: 05-5858(MLC) LITIGATION : : MEMORANDUM
More informationCOMES NOW Plaintiff PAUL SAPAN (hereinafter referred to as
Case :-cv-0-ag-rao Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: Justin Prato SBN PRATO & REICHMAN, APC Aero Drive, Suite 0 San Diego, CA Telephone: --0 Email: Jmprato@gmail.com Attorney for Plaintiff PAUL SAPAN
More informationCase 2:18-cv SGC Document 1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:18-cv-00278-SGC Document 1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 8 FILED 2018 Feb-20 PM 12:01 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION RUTH
More informationD.C. Circuit Court Decision May Help Level the Playing Field for TCPA Defendants
Debevoise In Depth D.C. Circuit Court Decision May Help Level the Playing Field for TCPA Defendants March 29, 2018 In recent years, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ) has imposed significant
More informationRULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER REGULATIONS FOR LOCAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER 1220-04-08 REGULATIONS FOR LOCAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1220-04-08-.01 Definitions 1220-04-08-.02 Certification Policy and Requirement
More information