Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

motionsummary judgment
motionsummary judgment

Related Cases

Countrywood Estates, Inc. v. Donnelly, 42 N.J.Super. 456, 127 A.2d 176
View Case »
Bullivant v. First Nat. Bank, 246 Mass. 324, 141 N.E. 41
View Case »
In re Hopper, 85 Ill.2d 318, 423 N.E.2d 900, 53 Ill.Dec. 231
View Case »
In re Perkins’ Estate, 195 Cal. 699, 235 P. 45
View Case »
Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47, 459 A.2d 744
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Allen v. First National Bank of Omaha, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2021 WL 2654630

Facts

On May 25, 2016, Harold Allen called First National Bank of Omaha and requested that they stop calling him regarding any accounts, although he did not provide a clear directive about all types of calls. Following this call, the bank made 594 calls to his cell phone, 236 of which used a prerecorded voice. Allen argued that he had revoked consent for these calls, while the bank contended that his request was only for telemarketing calls, not for calls related to account management or collections. The court found that there were disputed facts regarding the nature of Allen's revocation.

On May 25, 2016, Harold Allen called First National Bank of Omaha and requested that they stop calling him regarding any accounts, although he did not provide a clear directive about all types of calls.

Issue

Did Harold Allen effectively revoke his consent to receive calls from First National Bank of Omaha, and can the bank be held liable under the TCPA for the calls made after his alleged revocation?

Did Harold Allen effectively revoke his consent to receive calls from First National Bank of Omaha, and can the bank be held liable under the TCPA for the calls made after his alleged revocation?

Rule

Under the TCPA, consumers can revoke their prior express consent to receive calls, and such revocation can be communicated in any reasonable manner. The court must evaluate whether the revocation was effectively communicated based on the totality of the circumstances.

Under the TCPA, consumers can revoke their prior express consent to receive calls, and such revocation can be communicated in any reasonable manner.

Analysis

The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding Allen's May 25, 2016 call, noting that while he stated he wanted the bank to stop calling, he did not clarify whether this included all types of calls or just telemarketing. The bank's representative attempted to process his request but was interrupted when Allen hung up. The court concluded that a jury must determine whether Allen's communication constituted a reasonable revocation of consent under the TCPA.

The court analyzed the circumstances surrounding Allen's May 25, 2016 call, noting that while he stated he wanted the bank to stop calling, he did not clarify whether this included all types of calls or just telemarketing.

Conclusion

The court denied Allen's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether he effectively communicated his revocation of consent to the bank.

The court denied Allen's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether he effectively communicated his revocation of consent to the bank.

Who won?

First National Bank of Omaha prevailed in the case because the court found that there were unresolved factual disputes regarding the nature of Allen's consent revocation, which could only be determined by a jury.

First National Bank of Omaha prevailed in the case because the court found that there were unresolved factual disputes regarding the nature of Allen's consent revocation, which could only be determined by a jury.

You must be