Southern District of California Partially Dismisses Consumer’s TCPA Claim
The plaintiff alleged he received unsolicited text messages sent using an automatic telephone dialing system.
2/28/2019 1:30 PM
In a recent case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California partially dismissed a consumer’s claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to a blog post from ACA International member Troutman Sanders LLP. The case is Bodie v. Lyft, No. 3:16-cv-02558-L-NLS (S.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2019).
Plaintiff Jason David Bodie’s complaint alleged that he received two unsolicited text messages from a telephone number that belongs to or was used by Lyft on or about October 10, 2016. Bodie alleged that the first text message instructed him to download the Lyft app onto his cellular phone, while the second message included a link to download the app. In addition, he alleged that the text messages were sent using an automatic telephone dialing system, or “ATDS,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), and that the ATDS was owned by a commercial text messaging system acting as an agent or vendor of Lyft. Finally, Bodie alleged that he sustained damages because the text messages invaded his privacy interests, were a nuisance, and caused frustration, distress, and loss of time.
Lyft filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that: (1) Bodie’s ATDS allegations were conclusory; and (2) he failed to plausibly allege that Lyft sent the texts or had an agency relationship with the sender. The Court first noted two permissible approaches to evaluating the sufficiency of the consumer’s ATDS allegations. Under the first, a plaintiff is permitted to make minimal allegations in the complaint, and discovery is permitted to proceed on the ATDS issue because the information is in the sole possession of the defendant. Under the second, the plaintiff must plead factual allegations beyond mere statutory language. The Court held that, under either approach, Bodie had failed to state a plausible claim for relief because his complaint “merely parrot[ed] [the] statutory definition of an ATDS” and failed to contain any facts that supported a reasonable inference that Lyft used an ATDS to send the relevant text messages.
With respect to Bodie’s claim regarding the agency relationship between Lyft and the sender of the text messages, the Court held that his allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. In particular, the Court noted that the consumer’s allegations that the texts were “sent via a commercial text messaging system by an agent or vendor hired by Lyft” and that “Lyft instructed its agents or vendors as to the content of the text messages and timing of the sending of the text messages” sufficiently stated Lyft’s alleged vicarious liability.
Troutman Sanders will continue to monitor and report on courts’ analysis and treatment of the TCPA.
Editor’s note: This content is published with permission from Troutman Sanders LLP. If you are interested in sharing articles and analysis on legal cases for possible publication with ACA International, email our Communications Department at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Follow ACA International on Twitter @ACAIntl and @acacollector, Facebook and request to join our LinkedIn group for news and event updates. ACA International members are welcome to submit news items for possible publication to email@example.com. Visit our publications page for news submission guidelines and subscriptions to ACA Daily, Collector magazine and Pulse. Advertising is available for companies wishing to promote their products or services. Be sure to visit the ACA Events Calendar on the Education and Training website to view our listing of upcoming CORE Curriculum and Hot Topic seminars featuring critical educational opportunities for your company.