Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00946/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00946-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Joint Status Report & Proposed Order 1 No. 4:14-cv-00946-CRB

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

David C. Parisi (162248) 

Suzanne Havens Beckman (188814) 

PARISI & HAVENS LLP 

212 Marine Street, Suite 100

Santa Monica, California 90405 

(818) 990-1299 (telephone) 

(818) 501-7852 (facsimile) 

dcparisi@parisihavens.com 

shavens@parisihavens.com 

Ethan Preston (263295) 

PRESTON LAW OFFICES 

8245 North 85th Way 

Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 

(480) 269-9540 (telephone) 

(866) 509-1197 (facsimile) 

ep@eplaw.us 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs John and Carol Kleja, 

on their own behalf, and behalf of all others 

similarly situated

Debbie P. Kirkpatrick (207112) 

Damian P. Richard (262805) 

SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, L.L.P. 

1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 150 

San Diego, CA 92108 

(619) 758-1891 (telephone) 

(619) 296-2013 (facsimile) 

dkirkpatrick@sessions-law.biz 

drichard@sessions-law.biz 

Attorneys for Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

JOHN KLEJA and CAROL KLEJA, 

individuals, on their own behalf and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., a 

California corporation and DOES 1-5, 

inclusive,

Defendants. 

No. 4:14-cv-00946-CRB

ORDER LIFTING STAY 

CONTINUING STATUS 

CONFERENCE

Date: August 14, 2015

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Location: Courtroom 6, 17th Floor

Case 3:14-cv-00946-CRB Document 82 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 6
Joint Status Report & Proposed Order 2 No. 4:14-cv-00946-CRB

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

 The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this Status Report and Proposed 

Order. 

I. JURISDICTION 

All parties have been served and have responded. The case is at issue. Plaintiffs’ claims 

arise under 47 U.S.C. § 227, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). Under Mims v. 

Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012), the Court has federal subject matter 

jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ TCPA claims. 

On April 10, 2015, the Court granted Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. 

(“Transworld”)’s Motion to Stay the case pending the Federal Communication Commission 

(“FCC”)’s ruling on regulations implementing the TCPA. [Dkt. 78.] 

 On July 18, 2015, the FCC ruled and granted a TCPA safe harbor provision for a “wrong 

number” call to a consumer where the calling party had no actual or constructive knowledge that 

the cellular number had been reassigned and no longer belonged to the recipient. (See FCC, In 

the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 

1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, ¶¶ 89-91 (Adopted June 18, 2015, Released July 10, 2015) (“2015 

TCPA Order”). 

 In light of the 2015 TCPA Order, the parties stipulate that the Court’s Stay should be 

lifted. 

II. FACTS 

a. Defendant 

 Plaintiffs Carol and John Kleja (“Plaintiffs”) are residents of Bethlehem, Georgia. Carol 

Kleja’s discount cellular provider assigned her a recycled number which was previously assigned 

to a woman in Florida who failed to pay her hospital bill. Transworld, the hospital’s debt 

collector, placed one (1) dialer call and three (3) manual calls to the cellular number in an 

attempt to collect on the debt, not knowing that the debtor had abandoned the number. Carol 

Kleja did not answer any of the calls. Only one (1) call was made through a system that 

Plaintiffs allege constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) governed by the 

Case 3:14-cv-00946-CRB Document 82 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 6
Joint Status Report & Proposed Order 3 No. 4:14-cv-00946-CRB

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

TCPA under 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). The other three calls were made manually, without the use 

of a dialer, and therefore are not governed by the TCPA. 

In its 2015 TCPA Order, the FCC addressed the voluminous evidence in its record that 

callers have no guaranteed means to identify and therefore avoid dialing a number that has been 

unknowingly reassigned, the FCC ruled that callers like Transworld will have a one call “safe 

harbor” for a single dialer call to a reassigned number in order to gain actual or constructive 

knowledge of a reassignment. (2015 TCPA Order, at ¶¶ 89-91.) 

b. Plaintiff 

Plaintiffs dispute Transworld’s legal conclusions above. First, the Klejas do not concede 

that Transworld made the “manual” calls from equipment that does not constitute an ATDS. The 

parties have not developed the record as to what equipment Transworld used to make the first 

three “manual” calls to the Klejas’ cellular telephone. Under the 2015 TCPA Order, the use of 

human intervention in the course of making a call is not dispositive as to whether or not the 

equipment that dialed the call constitutes an ATDS: “dialing equipment generally has the 

[requisite] capacity [to constitute an ATDS] even if it is not presently used for that purpose, 

including when the caller is calling a set list of consumers.” (2015 TCPA Order, at ¶10.) In 

any event, Transworld cannot produce the evidence necessary to bring it within the 2015 TCPA 

Order’s safe harbor. 

The caller, and not the called party, bears the burden of demonstrating: (1) that he 

had a reasonable to basis to believe he had consent to make the call, and (2) that 

he did not have actual or constructive knowledge of reassignment prior to or at the 

time of this one-additional-call window we recognize as an opportunity for callers 

to discover reassignment. 

(Id. ¶85.) Here, Transworld did not listen to the Klejas’ voicemail message during any of the 

three manual calls. If it had, it could have and would have learned that it was calling the wrong 

number. These three missed opportunities are sufficient to foreclose the application of the safe 

harbor. 

A caller receives constructive knowledge of reassignment by making or initiating 

a call to the reassigned number, which often can provide a reasonable opportunity 

Case 3:14-cv-00946-CRB Document 82 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 6
Joint Status Report & Proposed Order 4 No. 4:14-cv-00946-CRB

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

for the caller to learn of the reassignment in a number of ways, including by 

hearing a tone indicating the number is no longer in service or hearing a name on 

a voicemail greeting that is different from the name of the party the caller 

intended to call.

(Id. ¶82 n. 293) (italics added). Transworld has not and cannot demonstrate that it is entitled to 

summary judgment on either its “manual” calls or LiveVox call. 

III. LEGAL ISSUES 

 Whether the wrong number safe-harbor provision from the FCC’s 2015 TCPA Order 

applies to the facts of this case in order to negate Plaintiffs’ TCPA claim. 

 Whether the TCPA’s definition of an ATDS applies to the equipment used to place the 

first three “manual” calls to Plaintiffs’ cellular telephone. 

 Whether a class can be certified or if the individual inquiries needed to ascertain the class 

and resolve disputed legal issues preclude certification. 

IV. ANTICIPATED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND STIPULATION 

TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

In light of the FCC’s 2015 TCPA Order, Transworld anticipates filing a motion for 

summary judgment, contending that the wrong number safe-harbor provision applies. Plaintiffs 

will be opposing the motion, contending that the first three calls to the Klejas were made with an 

ATDS (even if they were made “manually”) and that the 2015 TCPA Order’s safe harbor does 

not apply. 

Counsel have met and conferred on this issue, and will continue to meet and confer in an 

effort to resolve the case prior to filing the motion for summary judgment. 

Because the FCC’s 2015 TCPA Order was released just last month, the parties hereby 

request that the Status Conference be continued an additional 60 to 90 days. The parties believe 

that within that time the case will either be resolved, or a motion for summary judgment will be 

filed, and the further Status Conference can be set for the date of the motion hearing. 

V. DISCOVERY AND DISCLOSURES 

Discovery is ongoing. The parties have exchanged initial disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1) 

and have conducted written discovery. [See Dkts. 40, 49-58.] Plaintiffs’ depositions have been 

Case 3:14-cv-00946-CRB Document 82 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 6
Joint Status Report & Proposed Order 5 No. 4:14-cv-00946-CRB

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

noticed, but not yet scheduled. 

 

Dated: August 7, 2015 By: /s/Ethan Preston 

Ethan Preston (263295) 

PRESTON LAW OFFICES 

4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310 

Dallas, Texas 75204 

(972) 564-8340 (telephone) 

(866) 509-1197 (facsimile) 

ep@eplaw.us 

David C. Parisi (162248) 

Suzanne Havens Beckman (188814) 

PARISI & HAVENS LLP 

212 Marine Street, Suite 100 

Santa Monica, California 90405 

(818) 990-1299 (telephone) 

(818) 501-7852 (facsimile) 

dcparisi@parisihavens.com 

shavens@parisihavens.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs John and Carol 

Kleja, on their own behalf, and behalf of all 

others similarly situated 

By: /s/Damian P. Richard 

Debbie P. Kirkpatrick (207112) 

Damian P. Richard (262805) 

SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & 

ISRAEL, L.L.P. 

1545 Hotel Circle South, Suite 150 

San Diego, CA 92108 

(619) 758-1891 (telephone) 

(619) 296-2013 (facsimile) 

dkirkpatrick@sessions-law.biz 

drichard@sessions-law.biz 

Attorneys for Defendant Transworld 

Systems, Inc.

ORDER 

The parties to this action stipulated to lift the Stay imposed on April 10, 2015. 

The parties further stipulated to continue the Status Conference set for August 14, 2015 

for an additional 60 to 90 days. 

Pursuant to the stipulation, and for good cause shown, 

Case 3:14-cv-00946-CRB Document 82 Filed 08/12/15 Page 5 of 6
Joint Status Report & Proposed Order 6 No. 4:14-cv-00946-CRB

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

 IT IS SO ORDERED 

That the Stay imposed on April 10, 2015 is lifted. 

That the Status Conference is continued from Friday, August 14, 2015 to Friday, 

November 13, 2015 at 8:30 a.m. 

Date: August 12, 2015 _____________________________________ 

 Hon. Charles R. Breyer 

 U.S. District Court Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-00946-CRB Document 82 Filed 08/12/15 Page 6 of 6