§Why CasetextPricing

Eric Washington v. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources, Inc

REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case [Second Amended Complaint] 29

17 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,377 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Satterfield v. Simon Schuster

    569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 418 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the FCC's interpretation that a text message is a "call" under the TCPA is reasonable

  3. Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC

    707 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 352 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant violates the TCPA by calling a plaintiff's cellphone using an autodialing system without the plaintiff's consent

  4. Aca Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n

    885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018)   Cited 225 times   88 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was permissible for the FCC to interpret the autodialer ban as applying to devices that use a random or sequential number generator or devices that do not—just not both

  5. Rutman Wine Co. v. E. J. Gallo Winery

    829 F.2d 729 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 411 times
    Holding district court's denial of leave to amend appropriate where the identified defects in prior order were not cured in amended complaint

  6. Gragg v. Orange Cab Co.

    995 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (W.D. Wash. 2014)   Cited 27 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding human intervention to send texts was "essential" to system's ability to dial and transmit the messages and as such system in question was not an ATDS

  7. Ammons v. Ally Fin., Inc.

    326 F. Supp. 3d 578 (M.D. Tenn. 2018)   Cited 18 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Noting that with "[t]his essential fact being undisputed, the pending motions debate whether Ally's predictive dialer qualifies as an ATDS within the meaning of § 227."

  8. Herrick v. GoDaddy.com LLC

    312 F. Supp. 3d 792 (D. Ariz. 2018)   Cited 18 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that ACA International ’s reasoning directs courts to determine " ‘how much’ would be required to enable such capacity"

  9. Sterk v. Path, Inc.

    46 F. Supp. 3d 813 (N.D. Ill. 2014)   Cited 22 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding system in question was an ATDS where the only human intervention identified prior to sending the text was the "collection of numbers for [the system's] database of numbers"

  10. Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC

    55 F. Supp. 3d 1288 (S.D. Cal. 2014)   Cited 20 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding the plaintiff must show Defendant used a system with the statutory requirements of an ATDS at summary judgement

  11. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,659 times   733 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals