Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03487/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03487-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BROSNAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL LOAN CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03487-JCS 

ORDER REVIEWING PLAINTIFF'S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 AND ORDERING 

SERVICE OF COMPLAINT BY 

MARSHAL

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and therefore, the Court has 

an obligation to review his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In its October 26, 2015 

order, the Court found that: 1) Plaintiff’s claims under the Truth in Caller ID Act (“TCIA”) failed 

because there is no private right of action under that law; and 2) Plaintiff’s claims under the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) were deficient as to all Defendants except 

National Loan Center because he failed to allege specific facts showing how those Defendants 

were connected to the robocalls that are the basis for his claims. The Court granted Plaintiff leave 

to amend and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2015. 

In the amended complaint, Plaintiff has dropped his claims under the TCIA and has alleged 

additional facts linking the robocalls to all of the named defendants. Because the Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s amended complaint is sufficient to survive review under Section 1915, the Court orders 

the United States Marshal to serve the Complaint, a copy of this order, and any scheduling orders

Case 3:15-cv-03487-JCS Document 23 Filed 12/21/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on all named Defendants.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2015

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

 

1

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:15-cv-03487-JCS Document 23 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 2