Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc.

20 Citing briefs

  1. Teske, Courtnie v. Great Wolf Resorts Holdings, Inc.

    Brief in Opposition

    Filed October 3, 2016

    See Thomas, 2016 WL 3653878, at *4 (“Contrary to Defendants’ position, Spokeo did not change the basic requirements of standing.”); Mey v. Got Warranty Inc., 5:15-CV-101, 2016 WL 3645195, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. June 30, 2016) (“Spokeo appears to have broken no new ground.”).7 The fact that Spokeo broke no new ground is fatal to Defendant’s motion.

  2. Cruper - Weinmann v. Paris Baguette America, Inc

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 45 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint. . Document

    Filed September 13, 2016

    See Juarez v. Citibank, N.A., No. 16-cv-01984-WHO, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118483, at *6–8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016); Ung v. Universal Acceptance Corp., No. 15-cv-127 (RHK/FLN), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102363, at *4– 5 (D. Minn. Aug. 3, 2016); Caudill v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 5:16-cv-066-DCR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89136, at *3–4 (E.D. Ky. July 11, 2016); Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-101, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84972, at *16–17 (N.D. W.Va. June 30, 2016); Booth v. Appstack, Inc., No. C13-1533JLR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68886, at *17 (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2016);6 see also Part IV.A, infra (discussing post-Spokeo decisions affirming Article III standing of plaintiffs alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act).

  3. Smith et al v. Facebook, Inc. et al

    REPLY

    Filed August 22, 2016

    4 See Bona Fide Conglomerate v. SourceAmerica, 2016 WL 3543699, at *8 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (standing for CIPA claim where defendants “secretly recorded” conversations of plaintiff’s employees “to obtain confidential and privileged [ ] information to use against [plaintiff],” who spent “significant resources to respond”); Nickelodeon, 2016 WL 3513782, at *6-8 (standing based on alleged disclosure of minors’ private, personal information in the face of defendant’s express assurances that it would neither collect nor disclose that information); Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc., 2016 WL 3645195, at *1 (N.D. W. Va. June 30, 2016) (standing for TCPA claim: “unwanted calls cause direct, concrete, monetary injury by depleting limited minutes,” “deplet[ing] a cell phone’s battery,” and “wasting the consumer’s time”). Case 5:16-cv-01282-EJD Document 109 Filed 08/22/16 Page 12 of 36 6 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 5:16-cv-01282-EJD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of our citizens,” and that “[i]f we do not, we will promote the gradual erosion of this precious right.”

  4. Santana et al v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 48 MOTION to Dismiss of Take-Two interactive Software, Inc. to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, to strike the class allegations. . Document

    Filed August 19, 2016

    14 Civ. 00751(GPC)(DHB), 2016 WL 3543699, at *8 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2016) (holding, after discussion of Article III standing in light of Spokeo, that plaintiff “alleged a concrete and particularized injury—violation of its privacy rights—that is actual and imminent”); Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-101, 2016 WL 3645195, at *3-5 (N.D.W. Va. June 30, 2016) (holding that “a plaintiff asserting a TCPA claim has Article III standing” because the TCPA provides redress for an invasion of privacy, which is “a harm recognized as redressable through a common law tort claim” and which was “clearly identified” by Congress as a ”legally cognizable harm” when it enacted the TCPA). Further, unlike the plaintiff in McCollough -- who did not identify the concrete informational or other injury she suffered -- Plaintiffs here detailed the specific ways that they suffered both tangible harm, because Take-Two invaded their property interest in their face scans, and intangible harm, because Take-Two failed to give them information that they were entitled to by law and invaded their privacy.

  5. Smith et al v. Facebook, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed August 1, 2016

    Case 5:16-cv-01282-EJD Document 105 Filed 08/01/16 Page 18 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 5:16-cv-01282-EJD PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS “courts should consider ‘whether an alleged intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing the basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts.’” Mey v. Got Warranty, No. 15-cv-00101-JPB-JES, 2016 WL 3645195 at *5 (N.D. W. Va. June 30, 2016) (citing Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548). “Second, Congress may ‘elevate to the status of legally cognizable injuries that were previously inadequate at law.

  6. Guerrero v. GC Services Limited Partnership

    REPLY in Support re First MOTION to Amend/Correct/Supplement 1 Complaint

    Filed July 20, 2016

    Id. (parentheticals in original); see also Nyberg v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 2016 WL 3176585, at *7 (D.Or. June 2, 2016) (granting plaintiff judgment on the pleadings concerning the debt collector’s Spokeo affirmative defense, finding concrete injury sufficiently alleged); Chapman v. Dowman, Heintz, Boscia & Vician, P.C., 2016 WL 3247872, at *1 (N.D. Ind. June 13, 2016) (approving FDCPA class-action settlement, finding plaintiff has standing under Spokeo); see also Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc., 2016 WL 3645195 (N.D.W.Va. June 30, 2016) (providing comprehensive Spokeo analysis under TCPA); see also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Amicus Brief in Bock v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, Case: 15-1056 (3rd. Cir.

  7. Roldan v. Toys R Us, Inc.

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed July 19, 2016

    Citizen v. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989) (determining whether public interest group had standing to sue after they requested and were denied access to meeting minutes that were required to be produced under the Federal Advisory Committee Act).3 Because Plaintiff here did not read the Terms and Conditions or otherwise 3 The post-Spokeo cases cited by Plaintiff are similarly inapposite. See Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., No. 15-15708, 2016 WL 3611543, at *3 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016) (injury in fact satisfied where debtors reviewed collection letter that violated FDCPA for failing to set forth that letter was for purposes of debt collection); In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig., No. 15-1441, 2016 WL 3513782, at *7 (3d Cir. June 27, 2016) (injury in fact satisfied where plaintiffs suffered from an unauthorized disclosure of private information); Mey v. Got Warranty, No. 5:15-CV-101 (N.D. W. Va. June 30, 2016), ECF No. 128 (injury in fact satisfied where telemarketer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by invading consumers phones without consent, depleting minutes the consumer had paid for, and causing the consumer to incur charges for the calls). Case 2:16-cv-01929-SDW-SCM Document 35 Filed 07/19/16 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 250 6 sustain any injury from them or any lack of information contained therein, Plaintiff lacks an injury in fact for Article III standing.

  8. Sweeney v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.

    REPLY BRIEF to Opposition to Motion

    Filed July 15, 2016

    Citizen v. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449 (1989) (determining whether public interest group had standing to sue after they requested and were denied access to meeting minutes that were required to be produced under the Federal Advisory Committee Act).2 Because Plaintiff here did not read the Terms of Use or otherwise sustain any injury from them or any lack of information contained therein, Plaintiff lacks 2 The post-Spokeo cases cited by Plaintiff are similarly inapposite. See Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., No. 15-15708, 2016 WL 3611543, at *3 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016) (injury in fact satisfied where debtors reviewed collection letter that violated FDCPA for failing to set forth that letter was for purposes of debt collection); In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig., No. 15-1441, 2016 WL 3513782, at *7 (3d Cir. June 27, 2016) (injury in fact satisfied where plaintiffs suffered from an unauthorized disclosure of private information); Mey v. Got Warranty, No. 5:15-CV-101 (N.D. W. Va. June 30, 2016), ECF No. 128 (injury in fact satisfied where telemarketer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by invading consumers phones without consent, depleting minutes the consumer had paid for, and causing the consumer to incur charges for the calls). Case 2:16-cv-01927-KSH-CLW Document 34 Filed 07/15/16 Page 10 of 20 PageID: 251 6 an injury in fact for Article III standing.

  9. Yershov v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.

    RESPONSE to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed July 14, 2016

    A quartet of cases arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, three of which found standing under Spokeo, also illustrates this framework. The court in Mey v. Got Warranty, 2016 WL 3645195, at *4 (N.D.W. Va. June 30, 2016), observed that the “invasion of privacy” effected by unwanted phone calls was a concrete harm “because Congress so clearly identified it as a concrete harm.” Similarly the court in Booth v. Appstack, Inc., 2016 WL 3030256, at *5 (W.D. Wash. May 24, 2016), concluded that the harms resulting from unwanted phone calls— including not only the invasion of privacy but also wasted time and annoyance—were concrete under Spokeo because “Congress … agreed such an injury is sufficiently concrete to support standing.”

  10. Freeman et al v. Wilshire Commercial Capital L.L.C.

    MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

    Filed January 9, 2017

    Most of these cases consider the calls received by the plaintiff as a whole instead of evaluating standing separately for each call alleged to violate the TCPA. See, e.g., Caudill v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 5:16–066–DCR, 2016 WL 3820195 (E.D.Ky. Jul. 11, 2016); Mey v. Got Warranty, Inc., ––– F.Supp. 3d ––––, No. 5:15–CV–101, 2016 WL 3645195 (N.D.W.V. Jun. 30, 2016); Booth v. Appstack, Inc., No. C13–1533JLR, 2016 WL 3030256, at *5 (W.D.Wash. May 25, 2016).