TCPA plaintiff from hell spikes own case
- Peter Schneider
- 5 days ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 13 hours ago
Have you ever had a plaintiff from hell? That somehow convinced the likes of Scott Edelsberg and Chris Gold (along with five other attorneys) to represent him in a case sure to have them all asking what the hell. That case is
Faucett v. Move, Inc., No. â„– 2:22-cv-04948-ODW (ASx), 2025 LX 555607 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025). I have no personal knowledge of the case, everything I write is pulled from the opinions and assumed to be true for the purposes of this story.
Most folks probably don't recognize the defendant, move.com, but you might have heard of one of their websites realtor.com. This website comes off as a Zillow competitor and move.com promotes it (and perhaps other things) by purchasing leads from 500 other websites and then telemarketing those leads.
Back in 2022 Mr. Faucett visited three of those websites MyHouseDeals.com, HUDHomesUSA.org and Propertyshark.com:
Faucett provided his contact information to the Websites; he used three different email addresses and two different names. The Websites delivered Faucett's information to Move as three separate "leads" because Faucett provided different names and email addresses [This by itself does not kill a case - consent to receive calls can be revoked. But anyone taking the case should be looking for a clear revocation]
The court found that all three of those websites disclosed that automated calls would result from a web form submission and not surprisingly Move.com started telemarketing Mr. Faucett:
Move first contacted Faucett in response to his inquiry on MyHouseDeals. During the conversation, Move's agent asked Faucett if he was "still interested" in connecting with "an investor-friendly agent." Faucett replied, "yes," before ending the call abruptly because he was "smoking some weed." Move made several other attempts to follow up on this lead before eventually discontinuing its attempts. On April 30, 2022, Move contacted Faucett in response to his inquiry on Propertyshark. Faucett answered Move's second attempt to reach him and confirmed that he had placed an inquiry about a property in Louisiana. After a protracted discussion, Move connected Faucett with a real estate agent. The real estate agent later provided Faucett with an in-person tour of the property. (Faucett would later testify that he was "stringing [the real estate agent] along" and "giving her a BS story to keep her around because she is very hot.") Also on April 30, 2022, Move contacted Faucett in response to his inquiry on HUDHomes. Faucett did not respond, and Move attempted to contact Faucett again on May 10, 2022. This time Faucett did respond, except that he immediately replied: "This is not a good time to call me. I'm at a funeral. If you can call me back tomorrow around 12, that would be great." Move's agent confirmed that Move would call Faucett back "tomorrow at that time," to which Faucett replied: "Thank you so much."
This case survived a motion to dismiss:
And an appeal to the ninth circuit on a motion to compel arbitration:
Mr. Faucett is going to claim he twice asked them to stop calling but the wording of the court seems to indicate this is a he said-she said situation - apparently no recording or email or letter documents the first DNC request but it seems Move.com does not contest the June 4 DNC request:
Faucett claims that he made a "clear opt-out request" on or about May 4, 2022. Faucett also claims that Move sent prerecorded voice messages on five more occasions. Faucett does not provide any affidavit or documentary evidence to support this [oops], but Move provides evidence that on June 4, 2022, Move called Faucett twice to follow up on Faucett's HUDHomes lead. On the second call, Faucett picked up and immediately said, "[p]lease stop calling me." (McGrath Decl. Ex. P. ("June 4 Call Tr.")
About a month and a half after this June 4 call he is filing this lawsuit and the most recent order involved his motion to certify the class. These facts as recited by the judge are so inflammatory that I had to pull the motion just to see if I was missing something:
Mr. Faucett's argument is that the website consents didn't mention prerecorded calls, and that the website consents didn't name Move.com, and that Mr. Faucett sent a written DNC letter on May 11, 2022 [back then Move.com would have had 30 days to act on it]. And an expert hired by Mr. Faucett showed that Move.com called other people after they had made a DNC request but the motion didn't say how many calls or how many days after. In Mr. Faucett's case there was a June 6 call and then a July 20 call.
The problem for Mr. Faucett is he went on these websites and asked for calls (maybe not prerecorded and maybe not from Move.com but judges are loath to split hairs like that) and he gave the judge every reason to come gunning for him and when judges have it out for a party they often make bad law in the process. On the issue of consent for Move.com
Faucett argues that individualized inquiries will not predominate because Move's consents "all fail to satisfy the TCPA" as they fail to seek consent from consumers to specifically receive either prerecorded calls or calls from Move. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it ignores the law. Examining the prior express consent standard, the Ninth Circuit has expressly found that "it does not matter" that the caller was not the one identified in the plaintiff's consent. [This is very bad ruling that twists Fober into saying something it doesn't] Fober, 886 F.3d at 793-94 ("True, Plaintiff could not have known the identity of the specific entity that would ultimately call her. But when Plaintiff authorized Health Net to disclose her phone number for certain purposes, she necessarily authorized someone other than Health Net to make calls for those purposes." (emphasis omitted)). And there is nothing in the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, nor in the FCC's regulations, that would preclude applying this logic to the prior express written consent standard as well. Thus, the question of whether the consents at issue in this action specifically identify Move is not legally significant. Second, Faucett's argument is unpersuasive because it ignores the evidence. Two of the three Websites that Faucett visited—MyHouseDeals and Propertyshark—contains language indicating that the consumer agrees to receive prerecorded calls, specifically. (MyHouseDeals Privacy Policy; Propertyshark Privacy Policy.) While the third Website, HUDHomes, did not have specific "prerecorded" calls language, Faucett provides no evidence that HUDHomes used prerecorded voices to contact consumers. Thus, Faucett's argument that the consents are all legally defective, such that the Court need not individually inquire into each consent, is unpersuasive.
The judge continues to light him up:
For example, during the April 26, 2022 call, Faucett confirmed that he had submitted an inquiry on MyHouseDeals looking to be "connect[ed] with an investor-friendly agent." (Apr. 26 Call Tr.) Moreover, during the May 10, 2022 call, allegedly after Faucett had opted out, Faucett asked a Move caller to "call [him] back tomorrow around 12." (May 10 Call Tr.) When the Move caller asked whether the caller should "call [Faucett] back tomorrow," Faucett seemingly confirmed, saying "Thank you so much."
With the hottest flames yet to come:
The Court finds that Faucett's credibility presents an additional issue unique to Faucett that is likely to preoccupy the litigation. Courts have found that credibility destroys typicality in "unique situations where it is predictable that a major focus of the litigation will be on" the named plaintiff's credibility . . . evidence supports that Faucett filled out online forms for ulterior motives and is an untruthful witness. For example, although Faucett previously told Move that he had an interest in flipping houses, (Apr. 30 Call Tr.), he later testified that he not only made up his interest in real estate investing, but also did not know what flipping houses even meant: Q. What does "ready to flip" mean? A. I have no clue. Q. You don't know what it means? A. No. Q. It doesn't mean flipping houses? A. I'm not sure what that meant at that time. I just know it was giving [the real estate agent] a BS story to keep her around because she is very hot. They call her the Deals in Heels. And I don't get talked to by pretty women like that." Moreover, Faucett's deposition testimony is rife with further examples of him crudely testifying about interactions with the real estate agent: Q. Do you recall [the real estate agent] showing you a foreclosure home in Denham Springs, Louisiana, within days after realtor.com introduced you to [the real estate agent]? A. I don't remember if it was a foreclosure home. I don't remember if we looked at property at all. I just remember we met up and she had no underwear on. Because she sat down. That's the only thing I remember. Finally, Faucett's deposition testimony paints him as a forgetful, if not recalcitrant, witness: Q. Did you ever visit a website called hudhomeusa.org? A. I don't recall. Q. Are you denying that you did it? A. I don't remember. Q. Did you ever visit a website called propertyshark.com? A. I don't even remember. I've never heard of them. Q. Do you deny doing that? A. I don't remember . . . Q. Did you ever visit a website called myhousedeals.com? A. I don't remember.
This federal judge denied the motion to certify the class and while doing so, basically just told Move.com to file a motion for summary judgment to boot the rest of the case. The plaintiff screwed the lawyers and at some level the lawyers may have (or may not have) screwed Mr. Faucett by giving him bad advice. Mr. Faucett should not have filed the case and when the bad facts became known, should have settled for a few bucks, or should have agreed to mutually dismiss the case. After this giant waste of time he's more or less done as a TCPA plaintiff now.
TCPA plaintiff's need to take coaching from their attorney on building cases and TCPA plaintiff's attorney's need to give it to avoid bad cases and build strong cases.
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 or debt collectors bothering you in Washington or Oregon? I handle debt and 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.