July 9, 2020

Volume X, Number 191

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 08, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Court Finds Lawsuit Based on “Ruse,” Orders Plaintiff to Show Cause

A recent ruling from the Southern District of Ohio reveals the lengths to which some plaintiffs will go to manufacture TCPA claims – and how some courts are refusing to allow them to get away with such blatant manipulation. In Johansen v. National Gas & Electric LLC, No. 17-587, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208878 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2017), the plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated the TCPA by calling him on three separate days even though his residential telephone number is on the National Do Not Call Registry. Before the court were two different motions filed by the defendant: a motion to compel arbitration and a motion to stay class discovery.

As a threshold matter, the court denied the motion to compel arbitration because the plaintiff had never received a copy of the arbitration agreement—because, as discussed below, he had given the defendant a phony address. The court also noted that the defendant had waived any claim that the plaintiff’s cancellation of services was untimely, and therefore invalid, by honoring the plaintiff’s cancellation of service and declining to impose a lateness penalty. Id. at *7-8.

The court then turned to the motion to stay class discovery, and in doing so discussed “troubling” statements from the plaintiff and his counsel that revealed that the lawsuit was “based on a ruse.” Id. Specifically, the plaintiff admitted that he “posed” as an interested customer when he received a telemarketing call from the defendant, and that it is his “‘typical practice to pose as a customer’ whenever he received a telemarketing call.” Id. This entailed “affirmatively” taking steps to enroll in the defendant’s services, which included providing his service address and his account number with his existing electrical provider, as well as authorizing the defendant to switch his electrical services. Id. at *9. The plaintiff took these steps despite admitting “he had no actual desire to enroll with” the defendant. Id. To ensure that he would not receive services from the defendant, the plaintiff “deliberately provided [the defendant] with an incorrect address and an incorrect account number.” Id.

Without going into further detail, the court found that these admissions cast “serious doubts on [the plaintiff’s] fitness to serve as an adequate class representative.” Id. at *10. In addition, the court noted that these admissions undermined the viability of the plaintiff’s TCPA claim. The plaintiff alleged he received three calls from the defendant. The parties dispute who initiated the first call, but the court determined that, under the Do Not Call rules, even if the defendant initiated the first call, “an individual does not have a cause of action until he has received ‘more than one telephone call within any 12-month period’ from the same entity.” Id. (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)). The court determined that the second and third calls were not solicitation calls, because despite the plaintiff’s lack of interest in enrolling in the defendant’s services, his “deceptive conduct gave [the defendant] an objectively reasonable basis for believing that he had established a business relationship with [the defendant].” Id. at *11. In light of the admissions, the court granted the defendant’s motion to stay class discovery and ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to why his complaint should not be dismissed as meritless.

The National Gas & Electric decision demonstrates the lengths some plaintiffs will go to manufacture a TCPA claim, but also demonstrates that some courts will not allow claims predicated on deceptive conduct by plaintiffs to proceed.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume VIII, Number 5


About this Author

Bradley Andreozzi, Litigation Attorney, Complex, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Chicago

Bradley J. Andreozzi represents clients in complex high-stakes civil litigation, including class action trials and appeals. Brad has represented clients in virtually every federal appellate court, including the Supreme Court, and in many trial courts throughout the country.

Brad defends clients in class actions under various federal and state consumer protection laws, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) and many state false advertising statutes. His...

(312) 569-1173
John Yi, Drinker Biddle Law Firm, Philadelphia, Communications and Securities Law Attorney

John S. Yi represents clients in civil and criminal litigations in federal court, as well as investigations and enforcement actions by the United States Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and other regulatory bodies. John has assisted clients with internal investigations and compliance strategies. John also defends a number of class action cases with a wide variety of claims including issues arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). John is a consistent contributor to the firm’s TCPA blog.

John also is a contributor to the firm's SEC Law Perspectives Blog, which provides reports, discussions, and analyses on noteworthy trends in enforcement and regulatory activity of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other agencies, such as the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

John maintains an active pro bono practice and has served as an advocate for students with special needs in Philadelphia in collaboration with the Education Law Center. While in law school, John was a judicial intern for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden.