So theGonzalezanalysis tracks perfectly with that applied in the Central District of California decision ofWash. v. Six Continents Hotels, Case No. 2:16-CV-03719-ODW-JEM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145639 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018)–at least to that point. Departing from FCC guidance the GonzalezCourt next turned to whether or not the statutory definition of an ATDS includes predictive dialers.
In Washington v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-03719-ODW-JEM, 2018 WL 4092024 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), the Central District of California found that ACA International v. FCC,885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) [hereinafter ACA], set aside all prior FCC guidance regarding the definition of an autodialer. The plaintiff, Eric Washington (“Plaintiff”), alleged that Six Continents Hotels, Inc. (“Six Continents”) sent him numerous unsolicited text messages using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”).
moment contained within the reasoning inWash. v. Six Continents Hotels, Case No. 2:16-CV-03719-ODW-JEM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145639 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018). InWashthe Court ultimately denied a Defendant’s motion to dismiss a TCPA complaint alleging unlawful text messages, but not before obliterating all previous assumptions about how theACA Int’lruling interacts with earlier FCC rulings defining an ATDS.