Dobronski v. 1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC
2:24-cv-12512
| E.D. Mich. | Apr 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Mark W. Dobronski filed a pro se complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), alleging that defendant 1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC (LAWFIRM) sent him unauthorized SMS text messages and solicitation calls.
- The alleged messages, beginning in June 2023, were unsolicited, some addressed to "Carla," and solicited participation in mass tort litigation; Dobronski claims he never gave consent to be contacted.
- LAWFIRM answered the complaint, then filed several motions: for judgment on the pleadings/summary judgment, to stay discovery, for attorney's fees, and for sanctions.
- Dobronski sought discovery, to which LAWFIRM failed to timely respond; instead, LAWFIRM filed the instant motions after the court ordered discovery responses.
- The court resolved all pending motions on the papers, declined to strike for lack of concurrence, and addressed each substantive argument on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent to Messages | Never consented to messages or initiated contact | Plaintiff solicited contact and provided consent via third-party form | Genuine issue of material fact precludes dismissal or summary judgment; claim survives |
| Established Business Relationship (EBR) | No EBR existed before initial messages; no initial solicitation | Plaintiff’s inquiry created EBR, barring TCPA claims | Genuine dispute as to EBR; claim on initial contacts survives |
| Applicability of Do Not Call Registry | Number was registered; texts and calls violate TCPA | Registry rules don’t apply if plaintiff initiated contact; defendant not a "telemarketer" | TCPA applies to such messages; claim properly pled and survives |
| Sanctions/Attorney Fees | Defendant’s motions lacked merit, failed procedural rules | Plaintiff’s litigation is abusive, meritless, and for profit | No sanctionable conduct by either side; no fees or sanctions imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards for plausibility in Rule 12(b)(6) context)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standard for facial plausibility of a claim)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard for material facts)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (inherent authority of courts to sanction bad faith conduct)
- Stansberry v. Air Wis. Airlines Corp., 651 F.3d 482 (shifting burden in summary judgment motions)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577 (Rule 12(c) standards)
- Roth v. Guzman, 650 F.3d 603 (standard for motions for judgment on pleadings)