Callier v. Optimum Solar USA, 3:23-cv-00273

Plaintiff Brandon Callier, acting pro se, alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by Optimum Solar USA and Misael Guzman due to receiving at least 19 unauthorized marketing calls in May 2023 while on the National Do Not Call registry.
Plaintiff claims most calls came from an offshore telemarketer on behalf of Optimum Solar, with one call and a text from Guzman, whom Plaintiff identifies as Optimum Solar's principal owner.
Plaintiff scheduled an appointment with the telemarketer prior to Guzman's direct call.
Defendants were served but did not respond, leading the Clerk to enter default, after which Plaintiff moved for default judgment seeking $10,092 in statutory damages and fees.
The Court reviewed jurisdiction (subject matter and personal), service, procedural propriety under Rule 55, and the merits of the TCPA claim.
The Court denied default judgment, finding insufficient basis in the pleadings to grant relief against Guzman because Plaintiff's "express invitation" to schedule an appointment precluded TCPA liability for the final call.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Court have personal jurisdiction over Defendants?	Optimum Solar operates in Texas; Guzman is a Texas resident.	No appearance/argument.	Jurisdiction proper over Guzman (resident); not established for Optimum Solar USA (insufficient pleading).
Are the Lindsey procedural factors for default judgment satisfied?	Default entered; Defendants failed to respond.	No appearance/argument.	All factors satisfied for Guzman; default judgment procedurally proper.
Does Plaintiff state a viable TCPA claim against Guzman under § 227(c)?	Nineteen unauthorized telemarketing calls while on DNC list, including a call from Guzman.	No appearance/argument.	No liability for Guzman: Plaintiff invited the final call by scheduling an appointment, satisfying "express permission."
Is Plaintiff entitled to statutory damages for all calls?	Requests $500 per call for 19 calls, plus costs.	No appearance/argument.	Only one call by Guzman; no damages because call was permitted by Plaintiff's express invitation.

Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 1998) (lays out six-factor test for procedural propriety of default judgment)
Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat. Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (pleadings must have sufficient basis for default judgment; well-pleaded facts, not just legal conclusions, are deemed admitted)
Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1989) (default judgment reserved for extreme situations)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 582 U.S. 255 (2017) (explains general and specific jurisdiction)