Archive: October 2016

1
Second Circuit Finds Offer of Judgment on Individual Claims Negates Standing for Class
2
D.C. Circuit Keeps the Conversation Going in ACA Challenge to FCC’s 2015 Order
3
Federal Court Dismisses Suits for Failure to Allege Harm Traceable to Any TCPA Violation

Second Circuit Finds Offer of Judgment on Individual Claims Negates Standing for Class

By Joseph C. Wylie II, Molly K. McGinley, and Nicole C. Mueller

The Second Circuit recently refused to allow a plaintiff to proceed with a putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) in Bank v. Alliance Health Networks, LLC, finding that he lacked standing after the District Court entered judgment for Defendant in the amount of an unaccepted offer of judgment on Plaintiff’s individual claims.

Read More

D.C. Circuit Keeps the Conversation Going in ACA Challenge to FCC’s 2015 Order

By Andrew C. Glass, Joseph C. Wylie, Gregory N. Blase, and Molly K. McGinley

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (including Hons. Srikanth Srinivasan, Harry T. Edwards, and Cornelia Pillard) heard argument in ACA International v. FCC (D.C. Cir.), the much-anticipated challenge to the FCC’s July 2015 TCPA Order (“July 2015 Order”)(previously discussed here).  The court’s questioning of counsel for Petitioners and Respondents focused on a few key issues presented in the ACA’s challenge to the July 2015 Order.

Read More

Federal Court Dismisses Suits for Failure to Allege Harm Traceable to Any TCPA Violation

By Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Roger L. Smerage, and Eric W. Lee

The Southern District of California recently dismissed two Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) 47 U.S.C. § 227 actions for a failure to allege any concrete injury traceable to defendants. In both actions, the court found that plaintiffs had not alleged any concrete harm traceable to defendants’ alleged violation of the TCPA.  Due to this, the court held that plaintiffs lacked standing under Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) (previously discussed here), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that “a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm [does not] satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.”

Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.