I don't recommend demand letters in TCPA litigation - a cautionary tale
- Peter Schneider
- Mar 6
- 20 min read
Updated: Mar 9
I don't recommend sending demand letters in lieu of a summons and complaint in TCPA litigation and I am here to do a deep dive on why. Although it seems much easier and cheaper to draft a demand letter versus file a lawsuit, filing a lawsuit can head off a big headache like played out in Mey v Pintas et al 5:2024-cv-00055 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. While blowback from a demand letter is rare, this is the second instance I have observed. Telemarketers make a huge amount of money from illegal phone calls and just like Mexican drug lords, they are willing to do just about anything to keep those profits rolling. A word of warning, I'll try to be complete yet brief, but the shear audacity of scumbags William Pintas, Reliance Litigation LLC, and this Pintas law firm lasted a long time and there is a lot to cover.
Let's start with what the case is about, from Mey's complaint filed on March 1, 2024 [keep note of this date for later]. Spoiler alert, just about all of her allegations were sustained by the court.
Diana Mey is a consumer advocate from Wheeling who fights illegal telemarketing by investigating and prosecuting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. William Pintas is a lawyer who knowingly violations the TCPA in order to generate cases. It's bad enough that, as an attorney, Pintas relies on illegal telemarketing to fuel his practice. It's worse that, when confronted with his misconduct, Pintas responded by filing a frivolous and fraudulent action in a remote, territorial jurisdiction, in a transparent effort to silence Mey by inflicting emotional and economic pain . . . When Plaintiff made Defendant Pintas and his firm aware of their misconduct and demanded redress, Pintas responded by filing a fraudulent and frivolous lawsuit in the united States Territory of Paurto Rico - a forum entirely unrelated to the events giving rise to Mey's claims. The express purpose of the lawsuit was to coerce Mey into abandoning her advocacy by imposing emotional and economic hardship.
To help this post make sense, I am jumping ahead quoting from the court's opinion in docket 50, filed on May 17, 2024. Fasten your seatbelt, my notes are in bold.
The plaintiff, Diana Mey, is a consumer advocate who has been waging a war against violators of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) for over two decades.1 On February 8, 2023, Ms. Mey received an unsolicited telephone call on her residential phone, listed on the Federal Do Not Call list, seeking to sign her up as a plaintiff in the Camp Lejeune water contamination cases. Unable to ascertain the identity of the party or parties responsible for generating the calls, Mey engaged in a subterfuge by using a fictitious identity to gain the information and filled out a form. On February 10, 2023, one of the callers identified the three law firms on whose behalf the telemarketing calls were being made. This was confirmed by the receipt of an agreement of representation listing the firms as Cohen & Malad, LLP, Pintas & Mullins Injury Lawyers, and Nash & Franciskato Law Firm. In an effort to resolve the issues without resort to litigation, on March 15, 2023, Mey emailed a demand letter addressed to iIevin@cohenandmalad.com, dcutshaw@cohenandmaIad.com, Itoops@cohenandmalad.com. laura@intas.com, and biII@pintas.com. [Mey sent a demand letter, not a lawsuit] The next day, Mey was contacted by Robby Birnbaum and Chris Meier, Florida attorneys associated with the law firm Greenspoon Marder. Between March 16 and April 7, 2023, Mey exchanged numerous emails with Birnbaum and Meier, who offered assurances to Mey that William Pintas wanted to settle her claims. It appears in retrospect that Pintas had no intention of settling the claims, but was simultaneously scheming to file a meritless action in Puerto Rico for the sole purpose of intimidating and coercing Mey into abandoning her claims. [The settlement talks were a ruse while they went to Puerto Rico and filed a lawsuit against Mey in a territorial court] On April 4, 2023—the same day that Birnbaum emailed Mey about setting up a zoom meeting for April 7 “on getting the claim resolved”—Pintas directed the filing of a lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s Court of First Instance. In that lawsuit, Pintas makes a claim for fraud, asserting that Mey somehow entrapped the firm into violating state and federal telemarketing laws. Among other attacks, Pintas accuses Mey of “extortion” and committing fraud against the United States government. Pintas also seeks declaratory relief to the effect that none of the calls to Mey violated the TCPA because (a) Mey allegedly consented to be called; (b) Mey established a business relationship with the caller; (c) Mey is not a “residential subscriber” under the TCPA; and (d) there is no cause of action for a telemarketer’s failure to honestly identify itself. In other words, Pintas has invited the Puerto Rican court to resolve Mey’s federal claim under the auspices of declaratory judgment. There can be little doubt that the Puerto Rico court lacked personal jurisdiction over Ms. Mey. It is undisputed that Mey has never been to Puerto Rico, owned any property in Puerto Rico, or transacted any business in Puerto Rico. While the defendants point to the March 15 email seeking pre-suit resolution as providing jurisdiction, that claim is wholly unfounded. The proposed agreement of representation identifies the law firm in question as Pintas & Mullins Injury Lawyers. That law firm’s internet website states that the firm’s principal office is in Chicago, Illinois. It was to that firm in Chicago that Ms. Mey directed her email. While the website does list other locations for the firm, Puerto Rico is not listed. [No lawyer / law firm she emailed was in Puerto Rico and no part of the controversy occurred in Puerto Rico. Filing in Puerto Rico was just to harass Mey] At oral argument on the pending motion, counsel for the defendants represented that the phone calls in question were placed at the direction of P & M Law Firm (PR), LLC, but that representation does not change the facts that the email was sent to the Chicago firm and that the calls in question were received in West Virginia. It is also telling that the law firm initially sent Mey an email with a copy of the Puerto Rico complaint. Both the email and the complaint were in Spanish. The defendants had no reason to believe that Ms. Mey could speak or read Spanish, which she cannot. Assuming the email was mere spam, Mey deleted it. [More bad faith from these lawyers] The next day, while Mey was away from her home, a process server appeared at Mey’s door with what he described to Mey’s husband as a lawsuit from Puerto Rico. The server left with the papers in hand, [more bad faith, Mey's husband could have accepted service of the lawsuit] but after speaking with her husband, Mey drew a connection to the Spanish email and retrieved it from her computer’s trash folder. Recognizing little more than the name “Pintas,” she reached out to Birnbaum, who confirmed that his client had filed the suit. Thereafter, Mey reached out to her longtime TCPA attorney, who in turn attempted to reach out to Pintas’s Puerto Rican counsel. Mey’s attorney left multiple voicemails over a period of several days in an attempt to learn what was going on. After nearly a week, Mey’s attorney was finally able to reach someone named “Maria Martinez,” who claimed she was unable to disclose what the lawsuit was about without first speaking to her boss. Mey’s attorney asked Ms. Martinez to have someone call back. No one ever did. As it turns out, while Mey and her attorney were actively attempting to communicate with Pintas’ counsel to learn what the all-Spanish complaint was even about—and receiving only silence in response—Pintas was petitioning the Puerto Rican court for permission to serve the complaint via publication. A “summons by edict” was subsequently published in the “Primera Hora”—a Puerto Rican publication written in Spanish, of which Mey was obviously not aware and, even then, could not read. On June 12, 2023—more than a month after Mey’s attorney had reached out to Pintas’s counsel asking for information about the suit—Mey received what appeared to be an all-Spanish email from a court with the phrase “ANOTACION DE REBELDIA.” Mey quickly began reaching out to obtain counsel in Puerto Rico, which she was finally able to retain on June 27, 2023. Only after receiving translated copies of court filings from her Puerto Rican attorneys, Mey finally realized what had transpired over the past few months. But by then—and very much by design—she was not only in default, but had missed the opportunity to remove the Puerto Rican suit to federal court. Nonetheless, Mey’s Puerto Rican counsel was optimistic that the court would quickly dismiss the suit based on an obvious lack of personal jurisdiction, and filed a motion to that effect. Unfortunately, the Puerto Rican Court failed to rule on the motion for nearly six months. [The reason they filed in Puerto Rican becomes clear. It is a banana republic kangaroo court. I would wager money on good odds money changed hands for Pintas to get the outcome] Eventually, the court held a hearing on January 24, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the court convened an off-the-record meeting in chambers [kangaroo court] and requested that the parties consider agreeing to defer the issue of jurisdiction in exchange for lifting the default judgment [only a kangaroo court negotiates jurisdiction for vacating a default judgment]. In light of the court’s comments during that meeting, and based on her attorneys’ advice, Mey was left with the impression that the only way to have the default judgment lifted would be to agree to withdraw the motion to dismiss and defer the jurisdictional question until after a period of full-fledged merits discovery. The parties then went on the record and confirmed that “agreement.” The delay in determining jurisdiction runs contrary to the axiom that jurisdiction should be determined first. Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673 (4th Cir. 1989). In the Puerto Rico action, Pintas has served hundreds of interrogatories [abuse of process], demanded production of documents and records far exceeding any relevant purpose [abuse of process], and has demanded that Mey and her husband travel to Puerto Rico, at their own expense, to sit for depositions [abuse of process]. As noted above, the plaintiff seeks an order enjoining the Puerto Rico action. “In the interest of comity, the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits a federal court from granting an injunction ‘to stay proceedings in a State court,’ subject to three exceptions: (1 )where such an injunction is ‘expressly authorized by Act of Congress’; (2) where the injunction is ‘necessary in aid of [the federal court’s] jurisdiction’; or (3) where the injunction is entered ‘to protect or effectuate [the court’s] judgments.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2283. A injunction issued against parties to a state court proceeding is, for purposes of the Act, considered an injunction to stay the state court proceeding itself. See Atlantic Coast Line R.R. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287 (1970).” In re MI Windows & Doors, Inc., Prod. Liab. Litig., 860 F.3d 218, 224 (4th Cir. 2017).
Now that we are up to speed, what claims did Diana Mey bring forward in her federal court complaint?
Count 1 - 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)
Count 2 - Fraudulent legal process (West Virginia state law)
Count 3 - Abuse of process
Count 4 - Intentional infliction of emotional abuse
Count 5 - injunctive relief
These are serious claims for a plaintiff's side personal injury law firm to face. If sustained they could have credibility issues in representing injured people. On April 25th, Mey filed for an Anti-Suit injunction and the next day the court set a hearing on the motion four days later. This is judge speak for giving a damn.
On May 1st, the federal court issued an temporary restraining order preventing the now defendants from proceeding in any way with the lawsuit in Puerto Rico.
The All Writs Act empowers a federal court to enjoin proceedings that interfere with federal judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 1651. This includes the power to enjoin state court proceedings, but only when an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act applies . . . the Anti-Injunction Act permits injunctions against state court proceedings (1 )where Congress expressly authorizes, (2) where necessary in aid of the court’s jurisdiction, and (3) where necessary to protect or effectuate the court’s judgments . . . Plaintiff seeks an injunction based on the “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction” . . . The second exception is generally reserved for state court actions in rem, because the state court’s exercise of jurisdiction “necessarily impairs, and may defeat,” the federal court’s jurisdiction . . . this exception and the third exception to the Anti—Injunction Act allow federal injunctive relief against state court proceedings where it is ‘necessary to prevent a state court from so interfering with a federal court’s consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the federal court’s flexibility and authority to decide that case.
Diana May didn't know it yet, and she had a lot of litigation to go, but from this point on she won the case and never looked back.
defendant Pintas asks the territorial court to issue a declaration finding that none of the calls to Mey violated the TCPA because(1) Mey allegedly consented to be called, (2) Mey established a relationship with the caller; (3) Mey is not a “residential subscriber” underthe TCPA, and (4) there is no cause of action for a telemarketer’s failure to honestly identify itself. [Doc. 9-2]. A declaration on those matters would interfere with this Court’s ability to adjudicate Mey’s causes of action in this matter. Thus, the second exception applies here.
The opinion ended with a couple of sentences that at the end of this mess probably multiplied the amount of damages William Pintas paid Mey to make this go away: "It appears that defendants’ filing of the Puerto Rican lawsuit was a vexatious lawsuit designed to harass Mey. Despite being a native English speaker himself, Pintas directed his attorneys to serve the Complaint to Mey in Spanish. Then, in an attempt to effectuate service, Pintas published service in a Puerto Rican newspaper that Mey had no way of knowing existed."
Six days later, Pintas filed a motion to dismiss Mey's lawsuit. For being a lawyer, Pintas never learned to not honk off the judge by directly contradicting the court: "Mey could have removed the Puerto Rico Lawsuit to the federal district court in Puerto Rico, which has jurisdiction over this matter and where two of the defendants here (William Pintas and the Puerto Rico Firm) reside, but she elected not to. Now she must live with the consequences of her strategic decision."
Another theme of this blog article is exploring the use of deception to investigate a case. Let's use the Pintas' motion to dismiss to explore more of that.
Telemarketer William Pintas is mad for the same reason Troutman is mad and a lot of other telemarketers are mad. They call people against their will to sell them crap they don't want, but demand the few people capable of holding these telemarketers accountable please identify themselves up front so the Pintas's of the world have a better chance of getting away with it. The equivalent is a burglar complaining about houses that don't advertise they have a burglar alarm.
Mey’s Complaint—in each of her five separate claims—makes startling admissions of her own deceptive and fraudulent conduct, which is the very subject of the Puerto Rico Lawsuit. For example, Mey admits that in February 2023, she answered telephone calls and filled out forms using pseudonyms, such as “Rhonda Nicholson,” when completing online forms, such as TCPA consent forms. Mey does not deny that she filled out forms online using her “fake identity” and used her “imposter persona” Rhonda to give the Puerto Rico Law Firm consent to call the imposter and to prepare a retainer agreement for “Rhonda Nicholson,” the fictional character central to this litigation drama. Mey alleges that in late February 2023, she answered telephone calls and answered questions using her fake persona, Rhonda Nicholson. Mey also admits she consented to in-bound calls where “Rhonda” then allegedly protested the same calls she invited, claiming that “Rhonda” registered her telephone number on the National “Do Not Call” Registry.
I won't spend much time on their motion to dismiss because the court absolutely destroys them in denying it. Pintas should have been reading the tea leaves because on May 13, 2024, the Court extended the temporary restraining order indefinitely, before granting it permanently above in docket 50.
Something you see with these telemarketers is they just can't stop themselves. They will make complete fools of themselves pursuing litigation in bad faith. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they filed an interlocutory appeal. They wanted to overturn the judge's injunction on their Puerto Rico action, but they spent quite a few pages arguing their “Rhonda Nicholson” nonsense. Notice that they don't claim Diana Mey asked for their first call, where they wanted to see if Mey would serve as a plaintiff in a Camp Lejune lawsuit. No, they are mad that Mey didn't tell Pintas that she was angling to serve as a different kind of plaintiff:
On February 8, 2023, at 12:54 PM EST, professional TCPA plaintiff Diana Mey—who alleges that she is an “individual residing in Wheeling, West Virginia,” —apparently received an unsolicited telephone call regarding potential benefits and compensation under the Camp Lejune Justice Act. While Mey alleges that the telephone number in question was on the National “Do Not Call” Registry, call recordings supplied by Mey indicate that the call was, in no uncertain terms, consensual, if not invited. [Note Pintas did not cite to the record on this claim - this signaled the appeals court that this assertion was fake. Factual claims in appeal briefs point to the record that established it] Importantly, it was not Mey—the named plaintiff in this lawsuit—that answered the call that February morning. Rather, it was answered by a woman who confidently identified herself as “Rhonda Nicholson.” During this allegedly initial call about potential benefits under the Camp Lejune Justice Act, “Rhonda” represented to the caller that she lived in Bensenville, Illinois— not Wheeling, West Virginia. JA168-169. After confirming that “Rhonda” had not previously signed a retainer agreement with another law firm, the caller informed “Rhonda” that she would be receiving a follow-up call from an individual named “David Smith,” who would ask her a series of questions about potential compensation under the Camp Lejune Justice Act. Toward the end of the call, instead of “Rhonda” informing the caller of her true identity and explaining that her number was listed on the National “Do Not Call” Registry, “Rhonda” invited a second call. From there, Mey’s fraudulent and deceptive ruse blossomed. On February 8, 2024, at 1:54 PM EST, Mey—still cosplaying as “Rhonda Nicholson” from Illinois— received a second call. This time, “Rhonda” represented to the caller that she lived at Camp Lejune from 1978 to 1981 and was subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Then, at 2:02 PM EST, “Rhonda” received another call, this time holding the line for a few minutes before telling the caller that it was “okay” for them to call back in approximately 10 to 15 minutes due to apparent technical difficulties. A few minutes later, at approximately 2:10 PM EST, “Rhonda” received another call. This time, “Rhonda” held the line for a few moments before the call unexpectedly was disconnected. JA174. At 3:58 PM EST, “Rhonda” answered the phone once again, this time offering up to the caller a home address of “2541 West Drive” in Bensenville, Illinois. JA263. “Rhonda” also provided the caller with her email address and confirmed her date of birth. The caller then instructed “Rhonda” that she would soon receive a link via email to fill out certain paperwork. As a later call at 4:09 PM EST confirms, however, the link never arrived in “Rhonda’s” email inbox—indeed, Rhonda and the caller even shared a moment of laughter about the situation. The next day, on February 9, 2023, “Rhonda” received another call at approximately 10:14 AM EST. See JA195-196. The caller immediately asked for “Rhonda Nicholson,” and “Rhonda” quickly confirmed that she was, in fact, speaking. JA195. The caller informed “Rhonda” that she was once again calling about a potential claim for benefits under the Camp Lejune Justice Act. Confirming her email address so that “Rhonda” could receive paperwork and retain legal counsel to represent her, “Rhonda” affirmatively stated it was “alright” for the caller to call back. Heeding the unequivocal consent of “Rhonda,” four more calls were placed to “Rhonda” on February 9, 2023. Notably, during a call at 12:30 PM EST, “Rhonda”—again supplying a fake Illinois address and discrete email— indicated that she was exposed to the water at Camp Lejune and was subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer. As a result of her cancer diagnosis, “Rhonda” represented to the caller that doctors previously “cut off her breasts” in the early 1990s. The caller then informed “Rhonda” that they were going to ask her a number of “quality assurance questions.” This included (1) whether anyone had instructed “Rhonda” to lie or provide false information about a claim for benefits under the Camp Lejune Justice Act (“Rhonda” answered “no”); (2) whether anyone offered “Rhonda” money in exchange for lying (“Rhonda” again answered “no”); and (3) whether the information that “Rhonda” provided on the call was the “truth and nothing but the truth” (“Rhonda” lied, however, and answered “yes”). On February 10, 2023, “Rhonda” received six additional telephone calls about potential compensation under the Camp Lejune Justice Act. Like a predator focusing in on its prey, “Rhonda” began peppering the callers with questions about the law firms that were evidently behind the calls. Finally, at 4:07 PM EST on February 10, 2023, “Rhonda” spoke with a gentleman named “Chuck” from Reliance Litigation. Yet again, “Rhonda” falsely informed “Chuck” that she was a resident of Bensenville, Illinois, supplying an address of 2541 West Drive. “Rhonda” also furnished detailed medical information about previous healthcare providers and misrepresented that she had moved from West Virginia to Illinois just a few years prior. Eventually, the caller informed “Rhonda” that, if she signed a retainer agreement and consented to legal representation, “Pintas & Mullins” would be handling her claim for benefits under the Camp Lejune Justice Act. When tendered with an engagement letter to sign, however, “Rhonda” indicated that she was not going to execute the document because she purportedly did not request the initial call placed on February 8, 2023. Rather, “Rhonda” explained she was only engaging the calls in an effort to “identify the law firm behind the illegal cold calls about Camp Lejune.”
What really got Pintas, a personal injury lawyer, in a tizzy was Diana Mey had the moxy to ask for money to compensate her for her damages. The unmitigated gall of Ms. Mey to ask a money grubbing personal injury lawyer for damages! "Instead of immediately filing suit as “Rhonda Nicholson” in the Northern District of West Virginia—or, for that matter, in the Northern District of Illinois, where “Rhonda Nicholson” supposedly resided—Diana Mey sought to extract an exorbitant settlement from the P&M Defendants in the amount of $130,000."
Pintas took the appeal all the through oral argument which must have gone very poorly because after that, Pintas dismissed the appeal!
At this point Pintas's bunghole should have puckered, but Pintas had all the wisdom of a young Joe Delfgauw and on August 12, 2024, he plowed on ahead with an amended counterclaim!
It was a rehash of the material above,
Mey engaged in concealment, deceitful acts, fraudulent conduct, and representations as a subterfuge to invite telemarketing calls about Camp Lejeune, which she recorded because she claims she needed to gain more information about the caller . . . Shortly after receiving the first calls in February 2023, and after receiving the information calls about the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Compensation Claims, Mey seized the opportunity to use the calls to demand more than $130,000.00 from Pintas and two law firms, where Pintas is one of the founding members.
This got shot down hard. Based upon the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the Motion to Dismiss will be granted as to all four (4) of defendants P&M Law Firm (PR), P&M Law Firm, and William Pintas’ counterclaims.
Their first claim, obtaining services by false pretenses, died because defendants have failed to allege “services” obtained “under false pretenses” in this case. P&M Law fails to allege plaintiff ever signed the proposed representation, ever received legal services,
and ever intended to execute the contract.
The second claim, fraudulent legal process, faired no better. The court basically called William Pintas stupid:
This Court does not find defendants have made sufficient allegations of fraudulent legal process. Although defendants allege that plaintiff engaged in fraudulent conduct prior to filing a lawsuit, they do not state any more than conclusory assertions that the claim or the filing was fraudulent. Although defendants point to the fact that plaintiff went by another name when ascertaining the source of the calls, they do not point to a fraudulent legal process in this case. Defendants focus on their view that plaintiff was fraudulent in gaining the information about who was calling, but do not address how that creates a claim for fraudulent legal process.
The third claim, common law fraud, is the cry of all telemarketers: Defendants argue that plaintiff had “the knowledge and duty to disclose her identity, as well as the requisite intent to defraud P&M-PR and Pintas, after having invited calls related to Camp Lejune benefits.” Gone to!
This Court does not find defendants have sufficiently alleged the elements of common law fraud in their Amended Counterclaim. Defendants claim that the fraudulent act was plaintiff concealing her true identity and acting as though she was interested in further communication and services from defendants when she was not. Plaintiff admits she went by a pseudonym in her attempt to ascertain the identity of defendants (and therefore admits that the name she gave was false). Defendants claim that they relied on the false information given by plaintiff, but fail to allege how they relied on it to their detriment or how they were damaged by that reliance. Defendants cite to paragraphs 76—79 of their Amended Counterclaim when alleging that they had described damages, but those paragraphs seem to imply that the damages are the continuation of “so-called illegal calls.” . . . But for Mey’s deceit and concealment of the truth, P&M-PR and Pintas would have suffered no harm if Mey simply told the very first caller that she was actually Diana Mey [this is the only honest thing Pitas ever said, and this is the crux of all these fraud counterclaims - if the would be TCPA plaintiff had told us he was collecting evidence to build a TCPA lawsuit we would have done all we could to hide our identity] . . . instead, Mey intended that her concealment of her identity would allow her to string the callers along to ring the bell on more and more so-called illegal calls . . . Although defendants do not need to anticipate affirmative defenses, they must allege the elements of a claim and must allege fraud with particularity. In this case, defendants fail to describe what services were given in reliance or how reliance resulted in damage to the defendants.
And finally the court disposed of the fourth claim, abuse of process. This was Pintas' dumbest claim Though defendants believe the lawsuit is “not for any legitimate purpose,” the actions they ascribe to plaintiff (waiting “nearly a year. . .to file her own lawsuit,” waiting “an additional 38 days before moving to enjoin the Puerto Rican lawsuit,” prevailing in her injunction, and choosing the Northern District of West Virginia as a forum) are not a “misapplication of lawfully issued process.”
Somehow Reliance Litigation LLC got all this way without filing an answer! But on October 30, 2024, the judge order to answer by November 12, 2024.
And finally Pintas's knees bucked and he settled. Diana Mey had him by the short and skinnies so while I have no idea the amount, I am sure it was a lot more than the $140,000 she asked for initially. Had Pintas gone down on the abuse of process, fraudulent legal process, and IIED claims, it could have attracted the attention of the bar association, and the whole mess was sure to be put in Pintas's face in all of their litigation representing actual clients. Somehow they forgot they are a plaintiff's personal injury law firm and their integrity, or lack thereof, is an issue in every lawsuit.
A reward for making it this far is something the judge wrote in docket 50:
While the defendants seek to portray Ms. Meyas a professional plaintiff, “[t]he TCPA does not merely contemplate self-interested plaintiffs — it encourages them.” Cunningham v. Rapid Response Monitoring Servs., Inc, 251 F.Supp. 3d 1187, 1197 (M.D. Tenn. 2017). Individual litigants such as Ms. Mey are expressly authorized to act as “private attorneys general” enforcing the TCPA. Mey v. Venture Data, LLC, 245 F. Supp 3d 771, 784 (N.D. W.Va. 2017) (quoting Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Lou Fusz Auto. Network, Inc., 401 F.3d 876, 881 (8th Cir. 2005)). In this context, the Federal Trade Commission and numerous courts have endorsed plaintiffs posing as interested consumers in order to identify the source of a call. See, e.g., Fed. Trade Comm’~n v. Lifewatch Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 757, 771 (N.D. III. 2016) (“[T]elemarketers’ admissions are not rendered invalid just because Mey (successfully) tricked them into (truthfully) revealing that they sold products for Lifewatch.”).
You probably forgot the start of the article, but it was about not using demand letters. Had Ms. Mey sent a summons and complaint instead of demand letter, it probably would have prevented most of it. Even a lawyer as dumb as William Pintas probably would not have raised the ire of correct court trying the case with the Puerto Rico lawsuit trick, and there would be a lot more tools to kill it if they tried. The Diana Mey mess isn't the only time I have seen a party receive a demand letter and run to their local court to file a declaratory relief lawsuit.
Would you like a free case review? Do you have a question or a telemarketing, debt collection, or bankruptcy case that would make a great blog article? We might even review your pro-se complaint or motion in a blog post. Email peter@nwdebtresolution.com and/or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com and we may answer it for everyone!
Are telemarketers harassing you in Washington, Oregon, or Montana? My Washington State TCPA plaintiff law practice can help, just give us a call at 206-800-6000 or email peter@nwdebtresolution.com.
The thoughts, opinions and musings of this blog are those of Peter Schneider, a consumer advocate and Washington State plaintiff's TCPA attorney at Northwest Debt Resolution, LLC. They are just that, his thoughts, opinions and musings and should be treated as such. They are not legal advice. If you are looking to file a lawsuit for TCPA violations and unwanted calls please contact me for a consultation.
Comments