Gragg v. Orange Cab Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16648

Plaintiff, self-represented, alleges TCPA and CEMA violations from a text message sent by Orange Cab’s TaxiMagic system.
TaxiMagic links Orange Cab dispatch terminals, drivers’ Mobile Data Terminals, and an SMS modem to send dispatch notifications to customers.
Messages include cab number, pickup time, and may include driver name, distance, and an invitation to download TaxiMagic.
Dispatcher manually inputs customer data; after pressing enter, TaxiMagic transmits the notification to the customer’s number.
A driver accepts the request by pressing accept, triggering TaxiMagic to compose and send the text message.
Court grants partial summary judgment for defendants on the TCPA claim, finding the system is not an ATDS and requires substantial human intervention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is TaxiMagic an ATDS under TCPA?	TaxiMagic/modem can store and call numbers randomly/sequentially.	TaxiMagic lacks capacity to store/call random or sequential numbers.	TaxiMagic is not an ATDS.
Is TaxiMagic a predictive dialer under TCPA?	System dials numbers without human intervention.	Human intervention is required to send notifications.	Not a predictive dialer; human intervention is essential.
Does potential future software modification render the system an ATDS?	Software could enable ATDS functionality.	Capacity must exist now; not enough to be capable in the future.	Capacity must exist presently; not an ATDS as configured.
Should the court reconsider its TCPA ruling or allow discovery?	New authority supports reconsideration and discovery on capacity.	Reconsideration denied absent manifest error or new authority.	Reconsideration denied; discovery not warranted to alter the ruling.

Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 707 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2012) (ATDS element requires capacity to dial numbers)
Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (defines ATDS capacity and discusses storage/dialing of numbers)