A federal judge has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit from a defendant in a class-action Telephone Consumer Protection Act case after the plaintiff received one call on his cell phone.
Judge Jorge Alonso from the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois said that receiving one phone call on a cell phone was enough to satisfy the concrete injury requirements of Article III for the case to stand trial.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Reid Postle v. Allstate Insurance Company can be accessed by clicking here.
In filing the suit, the plaintiff alleged the call invaded his privacy, subjected him to an annoying and harassing call that deprived him of the legitimate use of his cell phone while he dealt with the call, depleted his cell phone battery, wasted his time, and created a risk of personal injury due to interruption and distraction.
In looking at the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins, which ruled that a plaintiff must suffer a “concrete” injury in order to be eligible to sue for damages in federal court, Judge Alonso ruled the allegations made by the plaintiff were sufficient to rise to the level of a concrete injury.
Postle’s claim that his privacy was violated as a result of the call he received—the alleged TCPA violation by [the defendant]—is sufficient, in and of itself, to establish a concrete injury under Article III.
Furthermore, Judge Alonso ruled, the being distracted by the call and having his time wasted were sufficient under Spokeo to confer concrete injury.
