Trupia v. Bob Moore Enterprises LLC
5:25-cv-00568
| W.D. Okla. | Aug 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Anthony Trupia sued Bob Moore Enterprises, L.L.C. over alleged unsolicited text messages related to vehicle servicing, claiming violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and similar state law provisions, as well as common law intrusion upon seclusion.
- The case was removed from Oklahoma state court to federal district court based on federal question jurisdiction, per the defendant’s notice of removal.
- Trupia claimed he was enrolled in a marketing campaign without his prior written consent and cited messages sent by an AI assistant, "Amber," as automated and unsolicited.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds that the complaint failed to state a TCPA claim, among other arguments, and multiple procedural motions were also filed, including to remand the case and to disqualify defense counsel.
- The court considered whether the texts were sent via an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS), whether private actions are allowed under challenged TCPA provisions, and whether the text messages constituted “prerecorded voice” messages.
- After ruling on the motions, the court dismissed the federal claims (TCPA), declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, and remanded those claims to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal to federal court proper under TCPA federal claims | Removal improper; TCPA prefers state court | Federal-question jurisdiction exists per Supreme Court | Proper; federal jurisdiction exists |
| Disqualification of defense counsel for ethical/procedural issues | Alleged misconduct, conflict and appearance of favoritism | No rule violated, no grounds for disqualification | Motion to disqualify denied |
| TCPA claim—use of an ATDS | Texts were automated, sent with AI, so ATDS used | Allegations conclusory; must plausibly allege use of ATDS as defined | Dismissed; insufficient facts to show use of ATDS |
| TCPA claim—prerecorded/artificial voice in text messages | Texts included AI assistant, possibly "voice" for TCPA | Texts were informational, not voice calls, so not covered | Dismissed; text ≠ prerecorded/artificial voice |
| Private right of action for TCPA §§ 227(d) & (e) | (Conceded) | No private right of action exists | Dismissed; no private right of action |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims | Declined; state claims remanded to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Mims v. Arrow Financial Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over TCPA claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. 395 (ATDS under TCPA must use random or sequential number generator)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (text messages constitute "calls" under the TCPA)
- Koch v. City of Del City, 660 F.3d 1228 (courts usually decline supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims dismissed)
- Soliman v. Subway Franchisee Advertising Fund Trust, LTD., 101 F.4th 176 (ATDS requires random or sequential generation for liability)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (court may dismiss sua sponte under Rule 12(b)(6) when amendment would be futile)