Lessons from Dobronski v. 1-800-Law-Firm in TCPA Cases
- Peter Schneider
- May 20
- 3 min read
Updated: Jul 22
Missteps in Defending TCPA Violations
No matter how strong the facts are in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit, some defense attorneys will take the defendant's money to draft frivolous motions. These motions often have little chance of success. A clear illustration of this can be found in Dobronski v. 1-800-Law-Firm, 2025 WL 1386024 (E.D. Mich April 17, 2025).
Dobronski sued 1-800-Lawfirm, a company notorious for unwanted calls and mass tort solicitations. They chose the wrong battle here.
1-800-Lawfirm filed multiple nonsensical motions, all of which were denied. This case serves as a cautionary tale about ineffective defense strategies. The court’s lengthy 30-page opinion meticulously debunks their arguments.
Here’s a closer look at some of the central arguments raised by 1-800-Lawfirm and what we can learn from them.
Analyzing the Defense Motions
1-800-Lawfirm's first major move was to request a judgment on the pleadings. Many plaintiffs may not encounter this specific motion. The court analyzes it similarly to a motion to dismiss.
Motions for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) are analyzed under the same standard as motions to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Roth v. Guzman, 650 F.3d 603, 605 (6th Cir. 2011). When deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), the Court must “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff and accept all allegations as true.”
This indicates that the court must take the plaintiff's claims at face value, providing a strong starting point for the lawsuit.
Accusations of Misconduct
Next, 1-800-Lawfirm accused Dobronski of deliberate misconduct for waiting over a year to file the lawsuit. This argument has surprisingly resonated with some judges before but fell flat here.
This argument has no basis in law, as LAWFIRM does not challenge that Dobronski has filed within the relevant statute of limitations and does not control LAWFIRM or its vendor’s data retention policies.
In essence, timing does not negate a legitimate claim when filed within the appropriate timeframe.
The Failure to Opt-Out Argument
They also claimed Dobronski failed to opt out of their text messages. However, they could not provide any authority to back their assertion that failing to opt out constituted consent.
“the TCPA places no affirmative obligation on a called party to opt out of calls to which he or she never consented; the TCPA places responsibility on the caller alone to ensure that he or she has valid consent for each call made[.]” In the Matter of Rules & Reguls. Implementing the Tel Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 30 F.C.C. Rcd. 7961 (2015). According to Dobronski, he “has never consented and therefore has nothing from which to opt out.”
This statement reveals an important truth about TCPA compliance. The burden of proof rests on the caller to demonstrate proper consent for marketing methods.
A Fruitless Offer of Judgment
Many of 1-800-Lawfirm’s arguments were weak and offered little for future cases. However, they nearly introduced an interesting component—a Rule 68 offer of judgment. Interestingly, the court struck it off the docket, which serves as a reminder of the potential pitfalls in legal proceedings.
The Court's Response
The lengthy analysis by the court highlights the careful consideration given to each motion. The court put significant effort into denying 1-800-Lawfirm's various motions. This sends a message about the importance of sound legal reasoning in defending TCPA claims.
Dobronski, or anyone in a similar position, must navigate the process of opposing these poorly conceived arguments. The effort to challenge unmerited motions is necessary for justice to prevail.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Dobronski v. 1-800-Law-Firm case serves as a vital lesson for both plaintiffs and defendants in TCPA lawsuits. It illustrates how weak legal arguments can backfire and emphasizes the importance of clear legal foundations.
If you have questions regarding telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy cases, we might feature your scenario in a blog article. Feel free to reach out to us at peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Do telemarketers harass you in states like Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help. Contact us at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.
The thoughts, opinions, and musings expressed in this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They reflect his personal insights and should not be interpreted as legal advice. If you seek to file a TCPA violation lawsuit or need consultation, please contact our office.
Comments