Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

JOSEPH BOND, on behalf of himself and 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

FOLSOM INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, 

CODY FOLSOM, and BERKSHIRE 

HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00075-MJT 

DEFENDANTS FOLSOM INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, AND CODY FOLSOM’S 

ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW, Defendants Folsom Insurance Agency LLC and Cody Folsom 

(collectively, the “Folsom Defendants”) and file this Answer to First Amended Complaint, and in 

support thereof would respectfully show the following: 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

2. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

3. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 43
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 2 of 12

PARTIES 

4. Folsom Defendants admit Plaintiff is an individual. Otherwise, Folsom Defendants are 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

5. Folsom Defendants admit the allegations in this paragraph. 

6. Folsom Defendants admit the allegations in this paragraph. 

7. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. Folsom Defendants are not challenging jurisdiction at this time. 

9. Folsom Defendants are not challenging jurisdiction at this time. 

10. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

11. Folsom Defendants are not challenging venue at this time. Otherwise, this paragraph sets 

forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to the extent they allege or imply wrongdoing by 

Defendant or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against Folsom Defendants. 

TCPA BACKGROUND 

12. This paragraph references and cites statutory language to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to the extent 

they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable 

claims against Folsom Defendants. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 44
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 3 of 12

13. This paragraph references and cites statutory language to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to the extent 

they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable 

claims against Folsom Defendants. 

14. This paragraph references and cites statutory language and history to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to 

the extent they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any 

viable claims against Folsom Defendants. 

15. This paragraph references and cites statutory language to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to the extent 

they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable 

claims against Folsom Defendants. 

16. This paragraph references and cites statutory language and history to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to 

the extent they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any 

viable claims against Folsom Defendants. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

17. Folsom Defendants admit the allegation in this paragraph to the extent it applies to them. 

Otherwise, Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

18. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 45
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 4 of 12

19. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

20. Folsom Defendants deny the allegation in this paragraph. 

21. Folsom Defendants deny the allegation in this paragraph. 

22. Folsom Defendants deny the allegation in this paragraph. 

23. Folsom Defendants deny the allegation in this paragraph. 

24. Folsom Defendants deny the allegation in this paragraph. 

25. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

26. Folsom Defendants deny the allegation in this paragraph. 

27. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

28. Folsom Defendants deny the allegation in this paragraph. 

29. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

30. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

31. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

32. This paragraph references and cites statutory language to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to the extent 

they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable 

claims against Folsom Defendants 

33. This paragraph references and cites statutory language and history to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to 

the extent they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any 

viable claims against Folsom Defendants. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 46
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 5 of 12

34. This paragraph references and cites statutory language and history to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to 

the extent they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any 

viable claims against Folsom Defendants. 

35. This paragraph references and cites statutory language and history to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants deny the allegations to 

the extent they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any 

viable claims against Folsom Defendants. 

36. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

37. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

38. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

39. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

40. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 47
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 6 of 12

41. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

42. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

43. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

44. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

45. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

46. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

of all the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

47. This paragraph references statutory language and history to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent 

they allege or imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable 

claims against Folsom Defendants. 

48. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

of all the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

49. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

50. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

51. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 48
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 7 of 12

52. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

53. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

54. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

55. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

56. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

57. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

58. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

59. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

60. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

61. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 49
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 8 of 12

62. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

63. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

64. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

65. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

66. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

67. This paragraph sets forth allegations to which no response is required. To the extent a 

response is required, Folsom Defendants denies the allegations to the extent they allege or 

imply wrongdoing by Folsom Defendants or that Plaintiff has any viable claims against 

Folsom Defendants. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 50
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 9 of 12

68. Folsom Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in this paragraph. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act 

47 U.S.C. 227(b) on behalf of the Robocall Class 

69. Folsom Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as if fully set forth herein. 

70. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

71. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

72. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

73. Folsom Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Folsom Defendants deny that Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class is entitled to 

the requested relief in this paragraph and subparagraphs A. through D. 

JURY DEMAND 

Folsom Defendants admit that Plaintiff has requested a trial by jury. 

FOLSOM DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

2. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of waiver, ratification, 

estoppel, and equitable estoppel. 

3. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. 

4. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent he failed to mitigate his 

damages. 

5. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or part because Defendant acted in compliance with 

all applicable rules, laws, and government regulations. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 51
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 10 of 12

6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §64.1200(c)(2)(i)(A)-

(E). 

7. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §227(c)(5)(c). 

8. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff was not charged for the 

ringless voicemail as required by the TCPA. 

9. Plaintiff does not meet the class requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Plaintiff cannot meet the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, 

and adequate representation. Additionally, the putative class is not ascertainable by 

objective measures and common issues of law and fact and do not predominate over 

individualized inquires. 

10. This is not a valid class action because the putative class members are not readily 

ascertainable. 

11. This action cannot be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure because: (a) Plaintiff is not adequate class representatives and cannot 

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative class; (b) Plaintiff’s claims are not 

typical of the claims of other members of the putative class; (c) individual issues of law or 

fact predominate over any common question; (d) adjudication of separate actions by 

individual members of the putative class would not be dispositive of others’ interests or 

establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant; (e) no other requirement for 

maintaining this action as a class have been satisfied; and, (f) the putative class is not 

properly defined or readily ascertainable. Consequently, any adjudication of any named 

Plaintiff’s individual claims or any claim of any purported class member on the basis of 

generalized, class-wide proof will not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and would violate 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 52
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 11 of 12

Defendant’s Due Process and other rights under the Texas and United States Constitutions.

12. This action cannot be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure because: (a) Plaintiff is not adequate class representative and cannot 

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative class; (b) Plaintiff’s claims are not 

typical of the claims of other members of the putative class; (c) individual issues of law or 

fact predominate over any common question; (d) a class action is not a superior method for 

fair and efficient adjudication of the purported controversy; (e) no other requirement for 

maintaining this action as a class have been satisfied; and, (f) the putative class is not 

properly defined or readily ascertainable. Further, adjudication of any named Plaintiff’s 

individual claims or any claim of any purported class member will require individualized 

inquiry regarding injury, causation, and damages, such that imposition of liability or any 

award of damages or other relief against Defendant on the basis of generalized, class-wide 

proof will not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and would violate Defendant’s Due 

Process and other rights under the Texas and United States Constitutions.

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants Folsom Insurance Agency LLC 

and Cody Folsom pray that Plaintiff take nothing by the claims asserted, that the lawsuit be 

dismissed with prejudice and on the merits, and that Folsom Defendants be awarded their 

attorney’s fees and costs, and for any other relief to which they may be justly entitled to in law or 

in equity. 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 53
Folsom Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint Page 12 of 12

THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P. 

By: /s/ Jason R. Jobe

Jason R. Jobe 

State Bar No. 24043743 

Email: jjobe@thompsoncoe.com

Yesha P. Patel 

State Bar No. 24098228 

Email: ypatel@thompsoncoe.com 

Plaza of the Americas 

700 N. Pearl Street, 25th Floor 

Dallas, Texas 75201-2832 

Telephone: (214) 871-8200 

Telecopy: (214) 871-8209 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on 7th day of 

August, 2024, to all counsels of record. 

By: /s/ Yesha P. Patel

Yesha P. Patel 

Case 1:24-cv-00075-MJT Document 12 Filed 08/07/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 54