Bill Dominguez v. Yahoo Inc
894 F.3d 116
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Dominguez received ~27,800 text messages over 17 months after buying a reassigned number previously subscribed to Yahoo’s Email SMS Service, which sent texts when Yahoo email arrived.
- Dominguez sued under the TCPA alleging Yahoo’s Email SMS Service was an autodialer that sent unsolicited texts to a cellular number.
- The TCPA defines an autodialer as equipment with the capacity to (A) store/produce numbers using a random or sequential number generator and (B) dial such numbers.
- The district court initially granted summary judgment for Yahoo, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded after an FCC 2015 Declaratory Ruling (latent-capacity theory), and Dominguez amended to allege latent/potential capacity.
- On remand the district court excluded Dominguez’s expert reports and again granted summary judgment to Yahoo, holding the Email SMS Service lacked present autodialer capacity; the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ACA International later invalidated the FCC’s expansive latent-capacity interpretation.
- The Third Circuit affirmed: Dominguez offered no admissible evidence that Yahoo’s system presently generated or dialed random/sequential numbers; messages were sent to numbers manually entered by a prior user.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yahoo’s Email SMS Service qualifies as an autodialer under the TCPA | Dominguez: the system had latent or present capacity to generate and dial random/sequential numbers (experts described possible modifications or inherent capabilities) | Yahoo: system only sent messages to user-entered numbers; no present autodialer functionality and latent-capacity theory is foreclosed | Held: No. Under controlling law plaintiff failed to show present capacity; latent-capacity theory cannot be relied on after ACA International |
| Admissibility/relevance of expert reports purporting to show latent or present capacity | Dominguez: experts show either latent capacity or that common systems can generate random numbers, supporting a triable issue | Yahoo: expert opinions are speculative, unreliable, and irrelevant to present-capacity inquiry | Held: District Court did not err excluding the expert reports as speculative, irrelevant, and not helpful to the present-capacity question |
| Effect of the FCC’s 2015 Declaratory Ruling | Dominguez: the FCC ruling supports latent-capacity theory; modifications short of reconstruction may suffice | Yahoo: ACA International rejected FCC’s expansive latent-capacity interpretation; case should be decided under present-capacity test | Held: ACA International narrowed scope; latent/potential capacity cannot establish autodialer status here |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate after exclusion of expert testimony | Dominguez: genuine dispute exists based on experts and facts | Yahoo: record shows messages were sent only to manually entered numbers, no evidence of random/sequential generation and dialing | Held: Summary judgment for Yahoo affirmed; no triable issue on present autodialer capacity |
Key Cases Cited
- ACA Int’l v. FCC, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (vacating FCC’s 2015 ruling that latent/potential capacity suffices for an autodialer)
- Gager v. Dell Fin. Servs., LLC, 727 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013) (texts are encompassed by the TCPA’s reference to calls)
- Nat’l Amusements, Inc. v. Borough of Palmyra, 716 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2013) (standard of plenary review for summary judgment noted)
- Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for excluding expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standards for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
- In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (admissibility depends on fit between expert testimony and factual issues)