Attorney Andrew Bullard breaks down how 'Per Stirpes' and 'Per Capita' beneficiary distributions compare and why it… https://t.co/U6GaQYD5pp
Understanding the Difference Between a ‘Per Stirpes’ and ‘Per Capita’ Distribution https://t.co/IsqsvpFwTg
Attorney Andrew Bullard breaks down how 'Per Stirpes' and 'Per Capita' beneficiary distributions compare and why it… https://t.co/p2aqG68xyr
In cursory fashion, a North Carolina District Court has recognized a good faith defense to TCPA claims where calls were made to a wrong number. In Danehy v. Time Warner Cable Enterprises, a contractor acting on behalf of Time Warner made six calls to the plaintiff over the course of two days. The calls were intended for a third party Time Warner customer who had provided the cell number in question to Time Warner as a secondary number where he could be reached. The calls were made in response to a request for service by the third party customer. The plaintiff filed suit asserting two claims under the TCPA: (a) placing unsolicited calls to a cell number through an ATDS without the recipient’s prior express consent; and (b) calling a number listed on the national do-not-call registry. On summary judgment, Time Warner argued, among other things, that both of the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed based upon Time Warner’s good faith reliance on its customer’s consent to call the number in question. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge who agreed and recommended that the motion for summary judgment be granted, and the claims dismissed. In reviewing the magistrate’s recommendations, the district court found no clear error and entered summary judgment in favor of Time Warner.
In its memorandum and recommendations, the magistrate judge noted that “it is undisputed that the defendant believed in good faith not only that it did have consent to call the…number, but also that the calls were being made for a service TWC’s Customer had requested.” Danehy, Dkt No. 19, p. 11. After looking at the circumstances surrounding the calls to the plaintiff, the magistrate judge found that “[u]nder the circumstances presented, defendant’s good faith belied that it had consent to call the…number would make imposition of liability under section 227(b) unjust.” Id.
The facts the court gave deference to were as follows:
The case provides some cautious optimism for the debt collection industry that under the right circumstances, a good faith defense may have some traction in TCPA wrong number cases. It’s also worth noting that both the magistrate judge and the district court cited favorably Chyba v. First Financial Asset Mgmt., 2014 WL 1744136 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2014) (holding that the collection agency was not liable under the TCPA for calls made to a wrong party where the agency was acting in good faith based upon information provided to it).
Caren Enloe is a partner who concentrates her practice in consumer financial services litigation and compliance, bankruptcy, and commercial litigation with an emphasis on creditor’s rights. She has a deep understanding of the complex compliance environment surrounding the financial services industry and regularly advises financial service companies on licensing and compliance issues involving state and federal consumer protection and finance statutes. Caren is the author of a daily blog titled: Consumer Financial Services Litigation and Compliance where she posts timely and informative updates regarding the CFPB, FTC, and a host of topical litigation issues involving consumer protection law....LEARN MORE