Give the right vibe when representing yourself in a TCPA lawsuit
- Peter Schneider
- Jun 27
- 5 min read
Updated: Jun 29
The telephone consumer protection act was envisioned as a law where normal citizens would bring telemarketers to account in court. The law did not provide for attorney fees and the damages were so nominal there really wasn't enough money in them to justify hiring a lawyer to bring them.
We don't teach court procedure in school, and there isn't a lot of coherent instruction online, so I don't blame this pro-se plaintiff in Hunt v. Vanguard Grp., Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121401, 2025 LX 181406 for fumbling around representing himself.
But it doesn't look good and it sends the wrong signal to the TCPA defendant (more on this at the end of the article).
In the Hunt court's order we look at today, the judge spends a bunch of time cleaning up a mess. Mr. Hunt filed a TCPA lawsuit, and Vanguard moved to dismiss it. Hunt apparently filed an amended complaint as a matter of course (FRCP 15(a)(1)) without a motion which immediately mooted Vanguard's MTD. So far so good, all normal events early in a federal lawsuit.
Where things went off the rails was Mr. Hunt's motion to amend the complaint again, a request for judicial notice, and a motion to stay the case pending resolution of the motion to amend the complaint again. These all send the signal that you don't know what your doing.
Second motion to amend on the heels of the first amended complaint
Look, it can happen. You work hard to amend a complaint and some typo or oversite leaves out something important, so of the three issues, this one is potentially the smallest sin. But it doesn't make a good impression that you are thorough and diligent, and you only get so many amended complaints. Even if you screw up the first amendment, if you can live with it through a portion of the discovery window, maybe hold off amending until you learn some new facts or have other issues also driving an amended complaint. Often small things can wait.
Mr. Hunt tried to supplement his complaint with separate documents
Somewhere in this Mr. Hunt tried to "supplement" his pleadings. Now this is real in some courts, but not really a federal court thing. The judge got on Mr. Hunt for this and other mis-pleading issues:
Rules of Civil Procedure, must state a cognizable claim for relief against the defendant, must be complete in and of itself, and must not refer in any manner to the prior complaint . . . If Hunt wants the court to consider any information contained in the supplements [filed on the docket. the information contained therein must alleged in the body of his amended complaint. Because the supplements are rogue documents, they are hereby stricken . . . Ninth Circuit case law makes clear that a plaintiff may not simply refer to a previous complaint, so amended complaints must include all relevant facts even if they were previously asserted in an earlier complaint. See Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012) ("[T]he general rule is that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it without legal effect . . . .").
Motion to stay the case pending resolution of the motion to amend
This one is sending off a strong signal of I-am-flying-by-the-seat-of-my-pants. This case is at the motion to dismiss stage, Vanguard's MTD just got mooted, and discovery either hasn't started or just started. What is there to stay and why? If he is looking to save Vanguard money by keeping them from having to respond to the live amended complaint pending the second amended complaint, get with Vanguard and file a stipulated motion on that one issue. Cases are stayed for bigger issues.
Motion for judicial notice
I've seen this move before with neophyte pro se plaintiffs. Judicial notice isn't an offensive tool you launch at the other side on it's own. Judicial notice is almost exclusively going to come as part of the factual basis supporting a motion or a Response or a Reply. There is really nothing on its own a court is going to take judicial notice of, and then sua sponte rule for you.
The First Amended Complaint (FAC) must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hunt's request for judicial notice must be denied because Hunt is disputing certain representations (which he maintains are misrepresentations) or is alleging Vanguard violated certain federal rules or Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 22 at 1. This places the issues set forth in Hunt's request in dispute and therefore inappropriate for judicial notice.
Judicial notice could be the right move for Mr. Hunt at some point, but save it for a motion, motion response, or a reply to a response, as needed. Preemptively filing for judicial notice before using it will almost always get shot down.
Why is this all bad?
You only have so much political capital with a court. You can spend it cleaning up messes, or you can spend it winning, but you only have so much and it runs out faster when the court thinks you are squandering it.
This court advises Hunt, Jr. that successive filings does not assist the court in resolving pending matters sooner. If anything, it causes further delays.
More importantly, what is the end game of filing a lawsuit? It is either going to get involuntarily dismissed, it is going to settle (and get voluntarily dismissed), or it is going to trial. TCPA defendants don't voluntarily settle and pay out based on what is fair considering what they did, they pay out based on what you will take compared to their expected costs to defend + what you might reasonably be awarded at trial. Note I said reasonably. The easier [cheaper] they think they can beat you and the less they think you can reasonably get at trial, the lower the settlement offers they'll make.
These sorts of mistakes signal to the TCPA defendant that you probably won't know how to get to trial, and you have a high chance of quickly fumbling the case to the defendant's advantage. This all translates to a lower settlement value to your case.
Plaintiffs who appear to have the knowledge and ability to take a case to trial and win are the most likely to get a settlement offer, and are able settle for higher amounts than TCPA plaintiffs who appear to not be able to go the distance.
None of this is to knock Mr. Hunt. Correct court procedure is often not obvious, it can and does change in different courts, and the legal profession does not go out of its way to educate the public on how to use the court beyond a superficial treatment of the subject.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve had similar problems with telemarketers, debt collectors, bankruptcy-related harassment, or even general legal related issues, we might research and 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 count as legal advice. If you're thinking of suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comentários