Davis v. Diversified Consultants
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
36 F. Supp. 3d 217 (2014)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Diversified Consultants, Inc. (DCI) (defendant) was a debt-collection agency. DCI used an automated system called LiveVox to call a specific list of debtors’ telephone numbers each day. If someone answered the automated call, the call was routed to one of DCI’s human debt collectors for handling. The company that provided LiveVox told DCI that LiveVox’s services were not prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) because the company did not use randomly generated or sequential telephone numbers. DCI obtained a phone number that it believed belonged to a debtor named Rosalee Pagan. However, the number was actually a cellular telephone number belonging to Jamie Davis (plaintiff). Using the LiveVox system, DCI called Davis’s cellular telephone 60 times in less than four months. Davis answered five to seven of the calls. Davis told DCI that he did not know Pagan and that he wanted DCI to stop calling him. One of the collectors implied that Davis was lying, and the calls continued. Davis sued DCI for violations of the TCPA and other privacy and debt-collection laws. Davis moved for summary judgment on his TCPA claim, alleging that it was undisputed that DCI had (1) called his cellular telephone number without his consent and (2) used an automatic telephone-dialing system to do it.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Saylor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
