Federal judge grabs bull by the horns - orders TCPA defendant to explain fraud allegations
- Peter Schneider
- Nov 4
- 3 min read
Updated: Dec 9
TCPA defendants love accusing TCPA plaintiffs of manufacturing the claim. Usually there is little downside to doing so, but one judge apparently decided to cut to the chase.
The case is ZELMA v. RAM et al in the District of New Jersey, case #2:25-cv-15701-EP-JS. The defendants removed the case from state court, then wrote a letter to the judge ostensibly asking for permission to file a FRCP 12(c) motion for a judgment on the pleadings.
"The record will show that Plaintiff attempted to manufacture this claim by calling Defendants, misrepresenting that he was interested in selling his home, and providing a false phone number and name in furtherance of soliciting information from the Defendants in support of the claims made in this action."
The judge saw that and responded by canceling a scheduled hearing and ordered the defendant to show their hand:
In their pre-motion letter, Defendants represent that "the record will show that Plaintiff attempted to manufacture this claim by calling Defendants, misrepresenting that he was interested in selling his home, and providing a false phone number and name in furtherance of soliciting information from the Defendants in support of the claims made in this action." D.E. 7 at 1. Defendants shall provide the Court with a supplemental letter indicating its basis for this statement and what proofs it has to substantiate that claim. The Court will cancel this pre-motion conference scheduled for next week, and upon review of Defendants' supplemental letter, the Court will indicate on the docket next steps in this action. So Ordered by Judge Evelyn Padin on 10/30/2025. (bt) (Entered: 10/30/2025)
*** Update
And the defendant Aaron Ram gives us all the big reveal of Mr. Zelma's "attempt" to manufacture a TCPA claim:
1. I am a licensed real estate broker under RE/MAX Real Estate Limited (“RE/MAX”). 2. On June 6, 2025, a call was made to Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not answer the call. A voicemail was not left by me. [Since Ram's declaration only addressed one call I ended up pulling the complaint. Mr. Zelma claims Mr. Ram called him the first time on May 22. I suspect Mr. Ram's not denying or acknowledging this allegation is because its true] 3. On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff returned the call to me. When I answered the call, I identified myself as Aaron Ram, a local real estate broker with RE/MAX Real Estate. Plaintiff informed me that his name was Paul Webber, that he owned two or three residential properties, and that he was interested in selling his home. He provided me with a fake phone number. [so the opposite of manufacturing a claim, he gave you a telephone number that would not generate TCPA violations he would later sue under] He then, under this pretense, asked me a series of questions including my full name, contact information, and what platform I use to contact consumers. 4. After asking me a series of questions, Plaintiff then stated to me that he was a “do not call vigilante”. [and again in the opposite of manufacturing a claim, he gave you a heads up to not call again] S Two days later on June 8, 2025, I then received correspondence from Plaintiff accusing me and RE/MAX of violating state and federal laws and demanding six thousand dollars ($6,000.00). [sounds like a deal considering he is probably substantially deeper in the hole than $6k with far to go]
In telemarketer parlance usually a "manufactured" claim means the defendant believes plaintiff could have done more to prevent the defendant from breaking the law. This telemarketer seems to be using a little different definition of "manufactured" - Apparently Mr. Zelma's use of a little ruse to reveal Mr. Ram's identity and motivations was "manufacturing" a claim.
This judge seems to be one of the rare smart and fair judges, he cut right to the chase and saved all involved umpteen billable hours to shine the light on if the case had merit or not. Mr. Zelma seems to have Mr. Ram firmly in his grasp. I'd up the $6k offer Me. Zelma, they've earned it.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve encountered similar issues with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington or Oregon? I handle TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not constitute legal advice. If you're considering suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments