Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00019/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00019-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Shupe, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Bank of America NA, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-00019-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 

States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau that recommends granting Defendant’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 172.) As thoroughly explained by Magistrate 

Judge Rateau, Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, because they failed to show that any of the 

telephone calls made by Defendant were pre-recorded. Plaintiffs are similarly not 

entitled to relief on their state law claim, under A.R.S. § 42-1282, because calls that are 

permitted under federal law are expressly permitted under the Arizona statute and 

therefore are not unlawful. Finally, Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that 

would entitle them to relief on their claim for invasion of privacy under Arizona state 

law. As Plaintiffs’ objections do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion 

reached by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Plaintiff’s objections are rejected and the Report 

and Recommendation is adopted. 

 At the time the Report and Recommendation was filed, Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Compel was pending. (Doc. 144.) Although the Report and Recommendation doesn’t 

Case 4:13-cv-00019-JGZ-JR Document 180 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

address the pending Motion, the issue of outstanding material evidence is raised by 

Plaintiffs in their Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 178) and in their 

Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 162). Plaintiffs assert a 

need for additional time to locate “four individuals who hold material evidence in support 

of Plaintiffs [sic] claims.” Pls.’ Resp. to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 10/28/14 (Doc. 162) 3:3-

5. These individuals include Jose Ascension Sontoyo, the third party previously listed for 

the Plaintiffs’ home phone number, as well as three individuals employed by Defendant 

who allegedly made calls to Plaintiffs’ home number. Although Rule 56(d) does allow 

for additional discovery while a motion for summary judgment is pending, Plaintiffs have 

not explained in an affidavit how the “sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the 

summary judgment motion.” State of California, on behalf of California Department of 

Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Locating Mr. 

Sontoyo is immaterial to the issue of whether the calls were pre-recorded for the purposes 

of liability under the TCPA. Similarly, the identification of individuals who placed calls 

to Plaintiffs’ home number would only lend further support to the Court’s finding that the 

calls were not in fact pre-recorded and therefore did not violate the TCPA. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 172) is accepted and adopted; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc 156) is DENIED AS MOOT; 

3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 129) is GRANTED and this 

case is dismissed; 

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this 

matter. 

 

 Dated this 11th day of March, 2015. 

Case 4:13-cv-00019-JGZ-JR Document 180 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 2