Clemens v. Counselorchen, P.C.
1:21-cv-01002
| E.D. Va. | Aug 22, 2025Background
- Charles R. Clemens, proceeding pro se, brought suit against Consumer Solution Center and related defendants alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Virginia Telephone Privacy Protection Act (VTPPA) arising from marketing of debt reduction services.
- Plaintiff sought default judgment against certain defendants for alleged unlawful telemarketing practices, including unsolicited calls and texts received after requesting not to be contacted.
- Plaintiff filed initial and amended motions for default judgment; a magistrate judge issued a recommendation, and Clemens filed objections, later amended.
- Plaintiff's main claims focused on improper calls after the termination of any business relationship, use of autodialing, spoofed caller ID, and lack of internal do-not-call policies.
- The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendations, conducted a de novo review of the objections, found much of the Recommendation was correct, and partially granted default judgment.
- Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff for certain TCPA and VTPPA violations after plaintiff’s establishment of (and later termination of) a business relationship and awarded $2,500 in statutory damages and $526 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Established Business Relationship (TCPA, VTPPA) | Clemens argued his "feigned interest" did not create a real relationship and defendants failed to disclose their principals. | Defendants claimed plaintiff's inquiry and responses established the relationship; business was legitimately solicited. | The court found a business relationship existed as plaintiff inquired; objection overruled. |
| Cursory Analysis of VTPPA Provisions | Recommendation did not meaningfully analyze VTPPA sections 512, 513, 514. | - (Default; no opposition due to default status) | Court found the Recommendation adequately analyzed the claims; objection overruled. |
| Analysis of Spoofing, Autodialing, & Do-Not-Call | Recommendation failed to address spoofing claim, autodialer use, and lack of DNC policy. | - (Default; no opposition) | Court found spoofing and DNC claims were not pleaded or not properly amended; objection overruled. |
| Misstatement of Factual Allegations | Recommendation mischaracterized plaintiff's pleadings, "tainting" conclusions. | - (Default; no opposition) | Court found no discrepancies/misstatements; objection overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (standard for reviewing magistrate judge’s recommendations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility requirement for pleading a claim)
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (targeted calls and ATDS under the TCPA)
- Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778 (review of well-pleaded factual allegations on default judgment)