Source: https://www.arentfox.com/services/communications-technology/telephone-consumer-protection-act-litigation
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:13:26+00:00

Document:
Arent Fox’s Communications, Technology & Mobile team has substantial experience defending against putative class action Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases.
Our litigators have defended dozens of TCPA cases in courts across the country, and we understand the nuances between text messaging, voice-broadcast (robo calls), and operator-assisted cases. We know what an autodialer is and what it is not. We are intimately familiar with the history of the TCPA, the FCC and judicial interpretations, and the tactics often used by plaintiff’s counsel across the country. Our team is strategic and sensible, and we strive to obtain the most efficient results possible.
We manage TCPA cases quickly and nimbly to avoid exposing our clients to unnecessary costs. From our nationwide experience, we understand the nuances class action litigation across the judicial circuits. For example, we know when to move to dismiss, when to seek an early motion for summary judgment, and when to move quickly to defeat class certification.
Our results speak for themselves with voluntary dismissals of many claims without the need for costly motions practice or discovery. Multiple courts have granted our motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.
Further, the Arent Fox team has been continuously involved in rulemaking and policy proceedings before the FCC on matters involving the TCPA in recent years. Our team is deeply involved in proceedings involving the application of the TCPA regulations to new services and in efforts to favorably clarify the regulatory status of SMS and MMS messaging.
Weisberg v. Stripe, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00584-JST (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2016): Won a motion to dismiss for payment processing company because plaintiff’s allegations only supported the inference that the text messages at issue were reactive in nature and specifically targeted to plaintiff, and thus plaintiff failed to plausibly plead that the messages were autodialed.
Payton v. VoiceShot LLC, No. 13-C-8002 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2016): Won a total victory by obtaining summary judgment with an order finding that cloud communications company acted as a common carrier and did not initiate calls allegedly made in violation of the TCPA.
Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, No. 5:15-cv-130-KKC (E.D.K.Y. Nov. 16, 2015). After filing a motion to dismiss establishing that our client could not be liable after the FCC’s July 2015 TCPA Order, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed our client rather than respond to our motion to dismiss.
Smith v. Securus Techs., Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 976 (D. Minn. 2015): Summary judgment granted for defendant on claims lodged under TCPA and its analog, the Minnesota Automatic Dialing-Announcement Devices Law.
Kauffman v. CallFire, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01333-H-DHB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2015). Won a total victory by obtaining summary judgment and a denial of plaintiff’s class certification motion with an order finding that cloud communications company did not initiate calls allegedly made in violation of the TCPA.
Luna v. SHAC, LLC, No. C14-00607 HRL (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015.). Obtained voluntary dismissal of our client with no admission of liability and a walk-away settlement; the court ultimately ruled that our client’s system was not an autodialer based on discovery conducted for this purpose by Arent Fox.
Rinky Dink, Inc. v. Electronic Merchant Systems, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-01347-JCC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 24, 2015). We obtained an order granting our motion for summary judgment on an issue of first impression, completely dismissing the case against our client.
Glauser v. Twilio, Inc., No. 4:11-cv-02584-PHJ (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2014). After discussions with plaintiff's counsel, the case was voluntarily dismissed as to our client Twilio.
Mendez v. C-Two Group, Inc., No. C-13-5914-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014). The federal court granted our Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismissed the case as to our client mobileStorm.
Rutherford v. Zoom Tan, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-509-FtM-29DNF (M.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2013). The federal court granted our Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the case as to our client Club Texting.
Ryan v. Jersey Mike’s Franchise Systems, No. 13-CV-1427-BEN-WMC (S. D. Cal.). After discussions with counsel for Club Texting, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case as to Club Texting.
Shay v. CallFire, Inc., No. 14-CV-1257-L-WVG (S.D. Cal.). After discussions with counsel, the case was voluntarily dismissed as to our client CallFire.
Couser v. Pre-Paid Legal Services, No. 3:12-CV-02575-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.). After discussions with counsel, the plaintiff dismissed her case with prejudice and we settled the dispute on behalf of our client CallFire with no admission of liability and no monetary contribution to the settlement.
Wolfkiel v. Intersections Insurance Services, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-07133 (N.D. Ill.). After discussions with counsel, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case as to our client Intersections after we obtained an order partially dismissing the complaint.
Salcedo v. Diamond, No. 14-CV-6291-WPD (S.D. Fla.). After discussions with counsel, the case was voluntarily dismissed.

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