Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-00544/USCOURTS-alnd-2_13-cv-00544-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:0151ta - Telecommunications Act of 1996

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SUEANNE SWANEY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

REGIONS BANK,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case Number: 2:13-cv-00544-JHE 

 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On November 18, 2015, United States District Judge David R. Proctor entered a 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, recognizing that the undersigned’s Report and 

Recommendation on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, (Docs. 59 & 62), did not 

address the FCC’s recently released July 10, 2015 ruling, In re Matter of Rules and Regulations 

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, 2015 

WL 4387780 (2015) (“2015 FCC Order’),

1 and referred this matter to the undersigned for further 

proceedings including consideration of the potential functionalities of Regions’ system and how 

those affect the issue of whether its system is an ATDS.2

 (Doc. 121). 

I. Analysis

As noted in the memorandum opinion and order, the 2015 FCC Order clarified the issues 

addressed in the Report and Recommendation, specifically that the TCPA defines an ATDS as 

 1 The FCC’s 2015 Order was issued near the end of the business day on Friday, July 10, 

2015. The R&R was entered on Monday, July 13, 2015.

2 In the July 13, 2015 Report and Recommendation, the undersigned denied Swaney’s 

motion to strike the Wong declaration, (doc. 87), and granted Regions’ motion to strike portions 

of Swaney’s Rule 26(a)(2) report of Jeffery A. Hansen, (doc. 68). (Doc. 117). The parties filed 

no objects to those rulings, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to TERM documents 68 and 87.

FILED

 2016 Apr-14 AM 11:32

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:13-cv-00544-RDP Document 134 Filed 04/14/16 Page 1 of 5
“equipment which has the capacity—(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, 

using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 2015 FCC 

Order at ¶12. The 2015 Order further emphasized that “capacity” is not limited to present ability 

or current capacity; rather the “capacity” of an auto dialer is not limited to its current 

configuration, but also includes its potential functionalities. Id. at ¶16. The 2015 Order explains

that the purpose of its issuance was to “[s]trengthen the core protections of the TCPA by 

confirming that: ‘[1] Callers cannot avoid obtaining consumer consent for a robocall simply 

because they are not ‘currently’ or ‘presently’ dialing random or sequential phone numbers,’ [2] 

‘Callers are liable for robocalls to reassigned wireless numbers when the current subscriber to or 

customary user of the number has not consented . . .,’ and [3] ‘Text messages are ‘calls’ subject 

to the TCPA, as previously determined by the [FCC].’” Id.at ¶2. The 2015 Order further states 

“the TCPA’s use of ‘capacity” does not exempt equipment that lacks the ‘present ability’ to dial 

randomly or sequentially’” and that “a piece of equipment can possess the requisite ‘capacity’ to 

satisfy the statutory definition of ‘autodialer’ even if, for example, it requires the addition of 

software to actually perform the functions described in the definition.” Id. at a5 ¶¶15, 18. 

Regions argues that Swaney has not come forward with any evidence to establish that its 

system has the requisite “capacity” to store or produce and dial random or sequential numbers, 

but admits that “it is theoretically possible for [its] system to be modified to generate and store 

random or sequential numbers. (see doc. 118 at 7-8) (emphasis in original). Based on the 

evidence presented, this possibility is much more than “theoretical.” 

It appears Regions’ use of the word “theoretical” is an attempt to align itself with an 

example the FCC used in its 2015 Order when discussing potential functionality and capacity, 

which states as follows:

Case 2:13-cv-00544-RDP Document 134 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 5
We do, however, acknowledge that there are outer limits to the capacity of 

equipment to be an autodialer. As is demonstrated by these precedents, the outer 

contours of the definition of “autodialer” do not extend to every piece of 

malleable and modifiable dialing equipment that conceivably could be considered 

to have some capacity, however small, to store and dial telephone numbers—

otherwise, a handset with the mere addition of a speed dial button would be an 

autodialer.https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I3e6a77ee2d7011e5b86bd602cb

8781fa/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Se

arch)&userEnteredCitation=2015+WL+4387780 - co_tablefootnoteblock_68

Further, although the Commission has found that a piece of equipment can 

possess the requisite “capacity” to satisfy the statutory definition of “autodialer” 

even if, for example, it requires the addition of software to actually perform the 

functions described in the definition, there must be more than a theoretical 

potential that the equipment could be modified to satisfy the “autodialer” 

definition. Thus, for example, it might be theoretically possible to modify a 

rotary-dial phone to such an extreme that it would satisfy the definition of 

“autodialer,” but such a possibility is too attenuated for us to find that a rotarydial phone has the requisite “capacity” and therefore is an autodialer.

2015 FCC Order at ¶18 (internal footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). The potential to modify 

Regions’ system “to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or 

sequential number generator” and “to dial such numbers” is much more than “theoretical.” 

Regions’ system is a sophisticated, computerized system that has sent out over 19 million texts in 

one month without any human intervention. (See doc. 43 at 3). To compare its capabilities to a 

rotary-dial telephone or a handset with a speed-dial button, as used in the FCC’s description, is 

illogical. The FCC’s 2015 Order specifically contemplates the “addition of software” – i.e., 

reprogramming – in determining the capacity. (Id.). 

The undisputed evidence, (see doc. 117), establishes Regions’ system, as presently 

configured, upon the triggering of a batch event, will deliver a watch directory a “batch event 

file.” (doc. 64, Ex. D at 19; doc. 64, Ex. E at 54:3-7). Upon completion of the batch file, the 

system sends a “signal file.” (Doc. 64, Ex. D at 19). When Montise finds the signal file, the 

alert system receives and begins processing the batch file. (Id.). To process the batch file, the 

system first ensures that the file has not already been processed. (Id.; doc. 64, Ex. E at 54:12-

Case 2:13-cv-00544-RDP Document 134 Filed 04/14/16 Page 3 of 5
19). If the file has not been previously processed, the system determines if any of the accounts in 

the batch file are registered to receive account balance alerts and whether the balance indicated 

in the batch file meets the criteria (e.g., the customer’s set balance threshold) for triggering an 

alert. (Doc. 64, Ex. D at 19; doc. 64, Ex. E at 55:1-11). If the alert criteria are met, a message 

template for the alert type is applied. (Doc. 64, Ex. D at 19). Thereafter, the Monitise server 

places the alert into a file which is then retrieved by an “aggregator” (mBlox) who then delivers 

the alert to the affected mobile device carrier. (Doc. 64, Ex. E at 56:6-10, 62:7-10, 75:9-13). It 

is the mobile device carrier, e.g., AT&T, who delivers the alert to the bank customer’s registered 

mobile device. (Doc. 64, Ex. E at 56:6-10, doc. 64-5 at 8; doc. 64-1 at ¶ 11). The same process 

described above is also followed for all types of batch alerts, only the names of the batch event 

file and signal file are different, as are the triggering events. (Doc. 64, Ex. D at 20-21). 

Kevin Wong, Director of Web and Mobile Development for Monitise, testified regarding 

the product it supplied Regions. (Doc. 66-7). Wong explains Monitise certifies its product on a 

Unix operating system, so Regions would be using hardware that runs a Unix, or similar, system. 

(Id. (16:17-23)). He further testified that various parts of the software it provided Regions can be 

configured to be on or off, performing different functions. (Id. (19:24-20:8)).

The undisputed evidence establishes Regions’ system is a computerized system with the 

capacity required by the 2015 FCC Order and is the type of autodialer Congress and the FCC are 

trying to regulate through the TCPA. Although, when evaluating Swaney’s motion for summary 

judgment, the undersigned must view the evidence in a light most favorable to Regions, to hold 

otherwise would require the suspension of reason. The portions of the original report and 

recommendation inconsistent with this supplemental report and recommendation are hereby 

superseded.

Case 2:13-cv-00544-RDP Document 134 Filed 04/14/16 Page 4 of 5
II. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Swaney’s motion for partial 

summary judgment, (doc. 59), be GRANTED, and Regions’ motion for summary judgment, 

(doc. 62), be DENIED. 

Should this recommendation be accepted, the undersigned FURTHER 

RECOMMENDS this action be referred back to him, at which time a scheduling conference 

will be set. 

III. Notice of Right to Object

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., any party may 

file specific written objections to this report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days from 

the date it is filed in the office of the Clerk. Failure to file written objections to the proposed 

findings and recommendations contained in this report and recommendation within fourteen (14) 

days from the date it is filed shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on 

appeal, except for plain error. Written objections shall specifically identify the portions of the 

proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for 

objection. A copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action. 

DONE this 14th day of April 2016.

_______________________________

JOHN H. ENGLAND, III

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

. 

Case 2:13-cv-00544-RDP Document 134 Filed 04/14/16 Page 5 of 5