TCPA Plaintiff plays weak hand to tie defendant to calls
- Peter Schneider
- Jun 4
- 5 min read
Updated: Jul 22
Knowing who is behind unwanted telephone calls and properly alleging who is behind the telephone calls are two different things. Courts can and will reject a lawsuit if it thinks the factual allegations tying a TCPA defendant to the calls are weak or missing. But sometimes you have play a weak hand and I think the plaintiff in telephone consumer protection act lawsuit Lightfoot v. SelectQuote, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-04673, 2025 WL 154795 (N.D. Il. Jun. 2, 2025) has done the best he can with what he had
Mr. Lightfoot received prerecorded phone calls with the message:
Hello. Hello. Hello. This is Ashley, your health center representative. How are you doing today? I’m calling because the updated plans for Medicare have just been released, and it may give you some better access to things like dental, vision, hearing, and over-the-counter benefits. Now, these benefits aren’t automatically given, so we are calling to make sure that you actually are given everything you may be entitled to. There’s also an additional benefit, which you may qualify to get up to $148 a month. That is cash back to your Social Security, depending on your income. Now, I believe you do have Medicare Part A and B, correct? That’s awesome. Okay, this is all the information that I need for my site to check your eligibility, and it does look like you qualify, I’m going to go ahead and get started. Thank you.
I didn't pull the original complaint, but for some reason Mr. Lightfoot felt SelectQuote was behind the calls and he sued them pro-se. Given his weak case, Mr. Lightfoot probably made a good move by adding attorney Michael Ovca as his attorney and engaging in discovery. SelectQuote of course tried to fight that off:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The parties are at odds over whether to engage in discovery while the anticipated motion to dismiss is pending, and defendant anticipates moving to stay discovery. The parties are to exchange Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures by 9/30/24. Status set for 10/9/24 at 9:00 AM to discuss whether the court should stay discovery or order the parties to issue written discovery.
A battle that Mr. Lightfoot ultimately won enough of. Credit where credit is due, this was a good federal judge in action, giving a consumer room to build a case while protecting SelectQuote in case they are not responsible for the calls.
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: The court will not entirely stay discovery, but discovery is limited to the call alleged in the complaint and how the call was generated. After ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court will set a status, if appropriate, to discuss further discovery.
While the limited discovery was going, SelectQuote moved to dismiss using the argument that Mr. Lightfoot didn't really have facts tying SelectQuote to the calls. Mr. Lightfoot had a lot of allegations as to SelectQuote's involvement:
Consumers who answered the pre-recorded voice prompt or called the number back were connected with an operator at a call center who vetted the consumer and, pursuant to an agreement with SelectQuote, transferred anyone qualified to SelectQuote. SelectQuote paid the lead generator for each call transfer.
but apparently didn't allege sufficient facts as to how he knew this to be true., so SelectQuote wanted out of the lawsuit on that basis. Mr. Lightfoot tried to bolster his case by pointing to a different SelectQuote TCPA lawsuit Stannard v. SelectQuote, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00312, ECF 16 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2024) (alleging plaintiff received an automated call and then was later connected with a SelectQuote licensed sales agent) and that might have worked if that lawsuit gave the same telemarketing script as in Mr. Lightfoot's prerecorded call, but when I looked at that complaint, it didn't give a transcript of the sales pitch.
SelectQuote argues the FAC should be dismissed because Lightfoot seeks to hold SelectQuote vicariously liable for the actions of third-party lead generators but failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of actual or apparent authority, or to show SelectQuote ratified the acts of the third-party lead generators. In response, Lightfoot clarifies that though he is proceeding under a theory of vicarious liability, he does not allege that the facts give rise to a theory of apparent authority. Lightfoot also argues that he should be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint with the benefit of discovery if the Court grants SelectQuote’s motion to dismiss.
The Court agreed
the alleged pre-recorded message did not include any information that would link SelectQuote to the call. In fact, Lightfoot admits in his response to SelectQuote’s motion to dismiss that “SelectQuote’s scripts hid its name in the prerecorded message at issue so that the calls appear to come from the lead generators and their partners, as opposed to SelectQuote.” A plaintiff must provide some specific facts to support the legal claims asserted in the complaint. While the required level of specificity “is not easily quantified,” a plaintiff must allege “enough details about the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together.” Plaintiff does not allege any facts in the operative complaint that links SelectQuote to the alleged phone call.
But the court gave Mr. Lightfoot the opportunity many anti-consumer judges would not have, so kudo to you Honorable Mary M. Rowland!
Lightfoot asks the Court to allow him to file a Second Amended Complaint with the benefit of discovery. The Court’s October 9, 2024 Order allowed Lightfoot to proceed with discovery “limited to the call alleged in the complaint and how the call was generated.” Lightfoot is given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by June 30, 2025.
If SelectQuote is the correct defendant, I hope Mr. Lightfoot got what he needed in discovery, but even if he didn't, Mr. Lightfoot played his weak hand about as well as could be expected.
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