Full title: SANDRA MCMILLION, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES…
Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 16-cv-03396-YGR
Date published: Jun 18, 2018
Fact:
Plaintiffs Sandra McMillion, Jessica Adekoya, and Ignacio Perez filed a class action lawsuit against Rash Curtis & Associates, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by making unsolicited calls without consent. The plaintiffs claimed that Rash Curtis used Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems (ATDSs) to make these calls. Additionally, Ignacio Perez alleged that he received calls without prior express consent.
Issues:
- Nature of Dialers Used by Rash Curtis:
- Whether the Dialers used by Rash Curtis constitute ATDSs under the TCPA.
- Whether these Dialers were capable of making calls without human intervention.
- Prior Express Consent:
- Whether Rash Curtis had prior express consent to call Ignacio Perez’s cell phone.
- Whether the prior consent provided by another individual, Daniel Reynoso, extended to calls made to Perez’s phone number.
Decision:
- Nature of Dialers Used by Rash Curtis:
- The Court previously ruled that Rash Curtis’ Dialers constituted ATDSs within the meaning of the TCPA.
- Rash Curtis sought reconsideration of this ruling in light of the ACA International decision, but the Court denied the motion, stating that ACA International did not change controlling law in the Ninth Circuit.
- Prior Express Consent:
- The Court previously found that Rash Curtis did not possess prior express consent to call Ignacio Perez’s cell phone number.
- Rash Curtis argued they reasonably relied on prior express consent provided by Daniel Reynoso, but the Court rejected this argument as it was not part of Rash Curtis’ original motion for summary judgment.
Additional Request and Decision:
Rash Curtis requested partial summary judgment on additional issues related to ATDSs and pre-recorded voice calls, but the Court denied these requests as they were not part of Rash Curtis’ original motion for summary judgment.
Conclusion:
The Court denied Rash Curtis’ motion to reconsider the parties’ motions for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to stay the case. Additionally, the Court refused Rash Curtis’ request for partial summary judgment on issues not included in their original motion.