A District Court judge in Florida has denied all of the arguments put forth by a plaintiff why his Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit alleging his cable provider called him more than 150 times using an automated telephone dialing system without first obtaining his consent should not be arbitrated and granted the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Tucci v. Bright House Networks LLC, d/b/a Spectrum, can be accessed by clicking here.
The defendant was accused of “intentionally” harassing and abusing the plaintiff by calling multiple times on the same day and placing calls on subsequent days, without having express consent to do so. The plaintiff “repeatedly” told the defendant to stop calling, according to the complaint. An ATDS was used, alleged the plaintiff, because the calls were made using a “pre-recorded voice,” according to the complaint.
But the plaintiff signed an agreement and a work order that included a mandatory arbitration clause, according to documents provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff attempted to use a ruling in another case, Gamble v. New England Auto Fin., Inc., as precedent for claiming the communications did not relate to the agreement, but in Gamble, there were two contracts, one of which was not signed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also claimed that the arbitration agreement was not binding because some of the calls were made after the plaintiff canceled his service, but the language in the agreement said that the arbitration provision survived the termination of the contract.
Finally, the plaintiff argued that defendant waived its right to arbitrate because it waited four months after the lawsuit was filed to file its motion to compel arbitration. But the judge ruled the plaintiff had not proven that the defendant acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate and granted the motion.
