Source: http://tcpablog.com/2014/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:26:54+00:00

Document:
As we have previously noted, several courts in the Middle District of Florida have made it abundantly clear that plaintiffs should not file “placeholder” class certification motions solely for the purpose of thwarting an attempt to “pick-off” a named plaintiff. See Stein, et al. v. Buccaneers LP, No. 13-2136 (M.D. Fla.) (J., Merryday); Haight v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., No. 13-1400 (M.D. Fla.) (M.J., Spaulding). Last week, the court reiterated this stance yet again. See Dickerson v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100323 (M.D. Fla. July 23, 2014) (J. Moody).
On June 25, Judge Michael Anello of the Southern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Sharp Healthcare (“Sharp”) in Hudson v. Sharp Healthcare, 13cv1807-MMA, a purported class action alleging two counts under the TCPA (Count I for a negligent violation and Count II for a knowing/willful violation) regarding automated calls concerning unpaid hospital bills, ending that matter absent an appeal.
The original complaint was filed on August 2, 2013, and was comprised primarily of legal assertions (including citations to case law) and boilerplate asserting that defendant had violated the TCPA. The only purported fact alleged was that “Plaintiff was admitted to Sharp on or around September 25, 2012 and may have given them her cellular telephone number ending in 5954 at that time so Sharp could manually contact her about her treatment,” and that she did not consent to receiving autodialed calls. Complaint ¶¶ 14-15 [Dkt. No. 1] (emphasis added). The plaintiff later was granted leave to file an amended complaint that hedged her claims, alleging that if plaintiff provided her number to Sharp, “it was provided to Defendant solely to allow Defendant to contact Plaintiff about medical treatment follow-up” and reiterated that she “did not provide prior express consent to Defendant to be called by an [ATDS].” First Amended Complaint, ¶ 13 [Dkt. No. 29-2].
Not long after filing a spirited amicus brief criticizing “opportunistic plaintiffs’ lawyers” for using the TCPA as an “extortionist club” against companies offering automatic text-enabled services, Twitter has been sued in a TCPA putative class action of its own. See Nunes v. Twitter Inc., No. 14-02843 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
The Nunes complaint alleges that Twitter is violating the TCPA by sending automated text messages to subscribers that have not opted to receive texts from Twitter. Ironically, Twitter typically requires that subscribers initiate text interactions, thereby providing the sort of express consent that resulted in a district court’s dismissal of a TCPA lawsuit against the L.A. Lakers. See Emanuel v. The Los Angeles Lakers Inc., No. 12-9936 (C.D. Cal. 2013). In fact, users sign up for Twitter’s text message-based services for the precise purpose of receiving texts.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.