ZELMA v. HALPERIN
2:24-cv-01059
| D.N.J. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Richard M. Zelma filed suit against multiple defendants, including individuals and corporate entities, for allegedly making 81 illegal robocalls to his landlines since May 2023.
- The case was first filed in New Jersey state court, then removed to federal court, where an amended complaint was filed naming various parties including unnamed “Doe Telemarketers” and “ABC Corporations.”
- Zelma asserted claims for violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and Section 206 of the Communications Act of 1934; the TSA claim was subsequently withdrawn.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing extensive pleading deficiencies, primarily improper group pleading.
- The Court found that the complaint was overly lengthy, vague, and used impermissible group and "shotgun" pleading, failing to specify which defendant allegedly engaged in which actionable conduct.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, permitting Zelma to amend his complaint within 30 days to address the identified deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether group/shotgun pleading is adequate under Rule 8 | Zelma alleged all defendants were collectively responsible for illegal calls | Defendants argued complaint improperly grouped all defendants, undermining notice | Impermissible; complaint dismissed for improper pleading |
| Liability under the TCPA | Defendants acted as platforms/providers for illegal robocalls in violation of TCPA | Argued they are common carriers, possibly shielded from liability; insufficient factual detail | Dismissed; can be re-pled with more specificity |
| Sufficiency of claim under Section 206 of the Communications Act | Defendants, as common carriers, liable for unlawful conduct | Plaintiff failed to specify which defendants are common carriers or allege actual damages | Dismissed; requires clarified allegations |
| Withdrawal of TSA claim | Initially brought a TSA claim against defendants | Plaintiff withdrew TSA claim to focus on TCPA | Withdrawal noted; TSA claim deemed moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets standard for plausibility pleading in federal complaints)
- Cambridge Ret. Sys. v. Altisource Asset Mgmt. Corp., 908 F.3d 872 (3d Cir. 2018) (a court must accept well-pleaded allegations as true for Rule 12(b)(6) motions, but not legal conclusions)
- James v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 700 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2012) (threadbare recitals and conclusory statements are insufficient)
- Zuber v. Boscov’s, 871 F.3d 255 (3d Cir. 2017) (facial plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints liberally construed, but not excused from factual specificity)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must provide fair notice of the claim and its grounds)
- Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997) (legal conclusions need not be credited)