The Central District of California issued a notable decision favoring defendants on the issue of revocaon of consent in a December 4, 2017 ruling.
In Herrara v. First Naonal Bank of Omaha, N.A., a putave class plainff got behind on her credit card payments. The card issuer’s automated dialing system placed a collecon call to the plainff’s cell phone and then transferred the call to an agent. On a recorded line, the plainff told the agent “Stop calling me.” The agent noted the “do not call” instrucon in the notes of the issuer’s collecon system, but the issuer sll placed fortytwo addional robocalls to the plainff’s cell phone.
The plainff filed a moon for summary judgment, forcefully arguing that this recording eliminated any possible issue of fact that she had revoked her consent to be called. The court sll denied summary judgment. There was some evidence that a minor first answered the call, so it was at least possible that the plainff herself did not issue the donot-call direcve. Furthermore, the court found it significant that the plainff did not answer any of the other forty-two robocalls.
The Point: Courts are reluctant to grant a plainff summary judgment on central issues of liability, such as revocaon of consent, even when the evidence is strong.