Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 105: Listen and Learn -- Public and Private Nuisance
Bill on Bankruptcy: The Market's Unquenchable Thirst for Junk
The Seventh Circuit has affirmed a ruling by an Illinois federal district court, holding that an "Information Laws" exclusion bars coverage for an insured dental services company's TCPA claim. Mesa Laboratories, Inc. v....more
Businesses in New York will face a tougher law with steeper penalties for telemarketing activities as of March 1, 2020. In late 2019, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo signed into law the Nuisance Call Act, which mandates that...more
The Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in Salcedo v. Hanna, brings good news to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) defense bar by breathing new life into challenges objecting to statutory injury in TCPA class...more
In Salcedo v. Hanna, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that a TCPA plaintiff lacked standing to pursue a claim based on the alleged receipt of a single, unsolicited text message....more
On February 26, 2019, the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (“Akin Gump”) filed a petition (“Petition”) with the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) requesting that the Commission “expeditiously...more
A single missed call from a telemarketer constitutes a concrete injury that gives rise to standing, a federal district court in California has ruled. In Shuckett v. DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29598...more
On Friday, the Sixth Circuit held in a matter of first impression that claims under TCPA survive the death of the Plaintiff, and may be prosecuted by a successor-in-interest. In Parchman v. SLM Corp., No. 17-5968, 2018...more
In the consolidated cases Espejo v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 11 C 8987, 2016 WL 6037625 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2016) and Levins v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 12 C 9431, 2016 WL 6037 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2016), the...more
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. May 16, 2016), it is clear that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation,” such that a...more