In a case that was defended by David Schultz and the team at Hinshaw Culbertson, a District Court judge in Michigan has largely granted a motion to dismiss filed by a number of defendants in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case brought by a professional plaintiff.
The Background: The plaintiff allegedly received 56 calls from six different companies between July 2021 and February 2023. The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendants violated numerous provisions of the TCPA, including using an autodialer, using an artificial or pre-recorded message, falsifying Caller ID, and more.
The plaintiff alleged that Family First Insurance is an Insurance Marketing Organization that sold leads and access to automated telephone dialing systems to help agents reach potential customers. Three of the other defendants — United of Omaha Life Insurance, Americo Financial Life, and Great Western Life — allegedly sell insurance products offered by Family First. Those three companies are allegedly aware that Family First allegedly engages in illegal telemarketing practices and still gave the company’s agents access to their systems and permission to use their trademarks.
- The plaintiff also named six individual defendants who are agents of Family First.
- The plaintiff alleged that Family First uses an ATDS to make its calls and that he received hundreds of calls. The plaintiff uses false, but unique identifying information to identify the source of subsequent illegal calls.
The Ruling: Family First attempted to argue that the plaintiff’s status as a professional plaintiff who invites calls for the purpose of filing lawsuits means he does not have standing to pursue this lawsuit. But Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan, determined the plaintiff does have standing because there is nothing in the constitution that exempts individuals from standing. In fact, doing so would require determining at which point a litigant becomes a professional plaintiff.
Judge Goldsmith goes into great detail on each of the 13 counts and which of the offending phone calls are subject to each count and makes a ruling on each. The only count to survive the motion to dismiss against all defendants was the first count — the use of an ATDS.