Charman v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC., 3:24-cv-00695

Plaintiff, Thane Charman, alleges he received 92 unsolicited text advertisements for subprime loans between April 2021 and December 2022, despite having registered his phone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
Defendant, Leadsmarket.com, LLC, is in the business of marketing and fulfilling subprime consumer loans, and allegedly sent the messages or had them sent on its behalf.
Defendant California Check Cashing Stores, originally named, was dismissed following a settlement.
Plaintiff's claims arise under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and related FCC regulations.
Leadsmarket moved to dismiss all claims under several Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including 8, 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 8 (Shotgun Pleading)	Complaint is clear and specifies conduct by Leadsmarket	Complaint is confusing and improperly groups defendants	Motion Denied; Complaint sufficiently clear
Rule 12(b)(6) - Count I (Automated Texts)	Voluntarily dismissed	N/A	Dismissed without leave to amend
Rule 12(b)(6) - Count II (Do-Not-Call Violation)	Sufficient facts link Leadsmarket to solicitations and website	Allegations are conclusory; no plausible theory of liability	Motion Denied; claim plausibly alleged
Rule 12(b)(6) - Count III (Internal DNC Policy)	Meets pleading standard via regulatory language	No factual basis that procedures were violated	Dismissed with leave to amend
Rule 12(b)(1) (Injunctive Relief)	N/A (no meaningful opposition)	No ongoing harm; no standing for injunction	Dismissed with leave to amend

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for federal pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state facts sufficient for plausible inference of liability)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing is required for federal court jurisdiction)