Page v. Regions Bank
917 F. Supp. 2d 1214
N.D. Ala.2012Background
- Page alleges Regions violated TCPA § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by placing ~150 autodialed/prerecorded calls to his cellular number between Sept 2009 and Sept 2011, calls intended for Derek Busby but made to Page’s number.
- The cellular line at issue is registered to Page’s fiancée, Angelique Roddey, though Page asserts he is the regular user and carrier.
- Region’s defense is twofold: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (12(b)(1)) and failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)).
- Page contends he is a proper TCPA claimant because he is the subscriber and user of the called number, not merely an incidental recipient.
- The court treats statutory standing under Rule 12(b)(6) and finds Page satisfies standing as the called party; the complaint is not dismissed on that basis.
- The court ultimately denies Regions’ motion to dismiss and allows Regions to answer by Sept. 4, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Page has statutory standing to sue under § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). | Page is the subscriber/user and regular caller recipient; thus a called party. | Only a called party may sue under the TCPA. | Page has statutory standing as called party; claims survive. |
| Whether the complaint fails to state a claim because Page allegedly was not charged for the calls. | Not required to plead that he was charged; calls violate § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). | Pleading charged-for-call is an essential element. | Plaintiff need not plead he was charged; claim survives. |
| Whether the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and should thus dismiss. | N/A ( Page asserts standing under TCPA). | Challenges to jurisdiction; 12(b)(1) should apply. | The court treats as 12(b)(6) analysis and denies dismissal; jurisdiction upheld. |
| Whether the court should convert Regions’ motion into a summary judgment motion based on evidentiary materials. | No conversion necessary; reliance on complaint is adequate. | Evidence suggests merits; may warrant summary judgment. | No conversion; rulings based on the complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2012) (called party includes the subscriber as the called party)
- Harris v. World Fin. Network Nat’l Bank, 867 F. Supp. 2d 888 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (standing under TCPA to any person or entity)
- D.G. ex rel. Tang v. William W. Siegel & Assocs., Attorneys at Law, LLC, 791 F. Supp. 2d 622 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (called party analysis supports standing without being charged)
- Meadows v. Franklin Collection Servs., Inc., 414 Fed. Appx. 230 (11th Cir. 2011) (discusses preexisting-exemption context and called party notion)
- Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (explanation of TCPA interpretation and charged-for-call context)