Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute between a consumer, Nece, and Quicken Loans under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), focusing on allegations of unwanted and persistent telemarketing calls. Nece, who had initially expressed interest in a mortgage through Quicken's website, later requested cessation of communications due to dissatisfaction with the company's reputation. The legal issues center on whether Quicken used prerecorded calls, violated the do-not-call registry rules, and failed to establish adequate procedures for handling such requests. The court addressed motions for summary judgment from both parties: Quicken sought judgment on all counts, while Nece pursued partial summary judgment and attempted to amend her complaint to include a wiretapping claim, which was rejected as futile. The court found that Nece lacked sufficient evidence to support the claim of receiving prerecorded calls and upheld Quicken's procedural compliance with do-not-call requests. It granted summary judgment in favor of Quicken on counts one and three while denying Nece's motion on counts two and three. The case highlights the complexities of TCPA compliance and procedural adherence in telemarketing practices.
Legal Issues Addressed
Do-Not-Call Registry and Revocation of Consentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Nece's claim that her consent was conditional and later revoked was not clearly communicated, affecting her standing under the TCPA.
Reasoning: Nece argues her consent was conditional on Quicken having a local office, but her communication did not clearly convey this condition, undermining her assertion of revoking consent based on the absence of a local branch.
Procedural Compliance with Do-Not-Call Requestssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Quicken met procedural requirements by implementing a do-not-call list and training employees, which Nece failed to prove was not adhered to.
Reasoning: Throughout extensive discovery, Nece did not find evidence that Quicken failed to implement a compliant do-not-call procedure.
Summary Judgment on TCPA Violationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted summary judgment in part to Quicken on counts one and three, denying Nece's claims due to lack of evidence and procedural compliance.
Reasoning: Quicken's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part; it is granted for counts one and three, while Nece's motions for summary judgment on counts two and three, as well as to add a wiretapping claim, are denied.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Prerecorded Callssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Quicken Loans is not liable under TCPA count one due to insufficient evidence that prerecorded calls were made to Nece.
Reasoning: The lack of evidence leads to the conclusion that the inference from Nece's declaration is negligible and fails to create a genuine dispute, leading to the finding that no reasonable jury could determine that Quicken called Nece with a prerecorded message.