80 F. Supp. 3d 917
C.D. Ill.2015Background
- Dish Network L.L.C.'s Limited Motion for Reconsideration challenges Opinion 445 (Dec 11, 2014) on Count I and Count VI.
- Opinion 445 granted partial summary judgment for 1,707,713 calls to the Registry and related calls, and for Retailer- and vendor-related liability, while finding issues of fact on others.
- TSR prohibits outbound calls to numbers on the Do-Not-Call Registry; do-not-call requests must be honored by Dish or its agents.
- Yoeli and Taylor offered competing analyses of the 2007-2010 call records; key dispute centers on agency with Retailers and scope of do-not-call obligations.
- The Court previously held there were no issues for certain calls but allowed reconsideration regarding the 2,386,386 internal-list calls, and retained factual disputes.
- Reconsideration vacates the liability finding for the 2,386,386 calls in Count I but preserves other partial-s JCJL judgments and Count VI rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2,386,386 calls are liable under TSR | US contends all calls to Registry/internal lists violate TSR. | Dish argues agency and evidence issues with Retailers negate liability. | Issues of fact exist; liability not established at summary judgment. |
| Whether Dish must honor do-not-call requests to Retailers | Agency with Retailers imposes obligations to honor requests. | Agency with Retailers is disputed; may negate obligation. | Issues of fact exist; agency status unresolved. |
| Whether prerecorded calls (Count VI) had existing business relationship | EBR existence affects legality of prerecorded calls. | Concession that calls targeted existing customers does not resolve EBR defense; disputes remain on EBR applicability. | No manifest error; factual disputes remain on EBR. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden and summary judgment standard under Celotex)
- Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) (limited function of motions for reconsideration)
