Dobronski v. 1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC
2:24-cv-12512
| E.D. Mich. | Apr 17, 2025Background
- Mark W. Dobronski sued 1-800-LAW-FIRM, PLLC under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), alleging he received unauthorized SMS messages and calls to his cell phone without his consent.
- Dobronski maintains he never sought legal help under the name used in the texts ("Carla") and did not consent to or subscribe to messages from LAWFIRM.
- LAWFIRM responded with multiple motions: to dismiss, for summary judgment, to stay discovery, for attorney’s fees, and for sanctions, mainly arguing that Dobronski consented or abused process.
- The presiding magistrate judge reviewed whether these motions satisfied procedural rules (e.g., seeking concurrence before filing) and found the motions substantively unsupported.
- The court found conflicting evidence as to whether Dobronski gave consent and determined genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment or dismissal at this stage.
- The court recommended denying all of LAWFIRM’s motions, including those for sanctions and attorney fees, and stated the case should proceed to discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consent to text messages (TCPA) | Did not consent or initiate any inquiry | Dobronski initiated contact, created EBR; offered opt-out | Genuine dispute on consent, claim survives |
| Established Business Relationship (EBR) | EBR not established prior to unsolicited texts | Plaintiff's (alleged) inquiry created EBR, barring TCPA claim | Genuine dispute, dismissal/summary denied |
| Applicability of Do Not Call Registry (DNC) | Number is registered; messages unsolicited | DNC rules not relevant since contact was solicited and LAWFIRM not covered | Issue of fact precludes dismissal/summary judgment |
| Sanctions/Attorneys’ Fees | Motions are meritless, fail procedural rules | Plaintiff is a serial, abusive litigant, justifying sanctions and fees | No basis for sanctions or fees at this time |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility of a claim under Rule 12)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (no obligation for detailed factual allegations, but must be more than conclusory)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard—genuine dispute of material fact)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577 (pleadings construed most favorably to non-movant on dismissal)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (court’s inherent sanction authority)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (sanctions under inherent authority for bad faith litigation)