Coffey v. Fast Easy Offer LLC, 2:24-cv-02725

Plaintiff Vicki Coffey filed a putative class action against Fast Easy Offer LLC (FEO), Keller Williams Realty Phoenix (KW Phoenix), and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (KWRI), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Do-Not-Call regulations.
Plaintiff alleged that, despite her phone number being on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since 2004, she received multiple unsolicited calls and texts from numbers associated with FEO, encouraging her to sell her home.
The communications were initiated by someone identifying as "Yannick" and referenced FEO’s website, which helped Plaintiff identify the Defendants.
Plaintiff claimed these communications were prohibited "telephone solicitations" in violation of the TCPA.
Defendants jointly moved to dismiss, asserting primarily that such calls are not "solicitations" under the TCPA, and that there was no plausible allegation of liability against KWRI.
The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding amendment would be futile because the facts alleged, even if true, could not constitute a TCPA violation as a matter of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are calls offering to buy Plaintiff’s home "telephone solicitations" under the TCPA?	The messages were "solicitations" because Defendants benefit financially, effectively charging a hidden fee for services.	The messages were offers to buy from Plaintiff, not to encourage her to purchase, rent, or invest in Defendants’ goods/services; thus not a "solicitation."	Such calls are not "solicitations" under the TCPA, as the statute covers offers to sell to, not buy from, the consumer.
Should KWRI be held vicariously liable under the TCPA?	Defendants share revenues and operations, plausibly connecting KWRI.	No plausible facts pled to support vicarious or direct liability against KWRI.	Not addressed—entire complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Should complaint be dismissed with prejudice?	Plaintiff sought leave to amend.	Amendment futile; legal theory cannot be cured.	Dismissed with prejudice; no set of facts would state a claim.
Interpretation of “solicitation” – plain text vs. broader interpretation?	Advocated a broader, contextual reading consistent with other circuit authority.	Argued for plain text; only encouraging purchases/rentals are covered.	Court must follow plain statutory text; only messages encouraging outbound purchases are "solicitations."

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes pleading standard for plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6)).
Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 705 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2012) (interprets “telemarketing”/“solicitation” for TCPA; calls must encourage future purchasing activity).
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (2021) (emphasizes importance of adhering to plain statutory text in the TCPA context).
Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard: material factual allegations taken as true on motion to dismiss).
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (clarifies Rule 12(b)(6): lack of cognizable legal theory or insufficient facts warrants dismissal).