A District Court judge in California has granted a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss counterclaims filed by a defendant that is accused of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an automated telephone dialing system to make collection calls to the plaintiff after consent to contact him had been revoked.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Castillo v. J.P. Morgan Chase can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant made 34 calls using an ATDS to collect on an unpaid credit card debt after he revoked consent to be contacted. The defendant filed a counterclaim, alleging the plaintiff breached a contract between the two parties, account stated, and quantum meruit. The defendant alleged the plaintiff breached a cardmember agreement to repay the credit card debt and was seeking to recover the balance owed, interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
In granting the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims, Judge Haywood Gilliam of the District Court for the Northern District of California, determined that the defendant’s claims should not be included as part of the plaintiff’s original lawsuit, because they would “require proof of different facts, involve different witnesses, and apply different law.”
Judge Gilliam also noted that allowing the defendant to pursue its counterclaims “may deter future plaintiffs from bringing TCPA claims.” The defendant was seeking to recover more than $5,000 in unpaid debt, plus interest, and reasonable attorney’s fees, which “could easily eclipse” the amount the plaintiff would receive if the defendant obtained relief for all 34 calls it made. “…The specter of such fees could deter future plaintiffs from filing TCPA actions, which are ‘intended to protect privacy rights’ irrespective of the reason for such calls,” Judge Gilliam said.
