Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-07-2023
Case Style:
Timothy Miles v. Medicredit, Inc.
Case Number: 4:20-cv-01186
Judge: John A. Ross
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of St. Louis (St. Louis County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Maura K. Monaghan, Megan D. Meadows, Scott J. Dickenson,
Jacob W. Stahl
Description: St. Louis, Missouri consumer law represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a Telephone Consumer Protection Act violation theory.
Plaintiff Timothy Miles brought this putative class action against Defendant Medicredit, Inc. ("Medicredit"), a medical debt collector, for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Medicredit violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by placing non-emergency telephone calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers by using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and an artificial or prerecorded voice, without their prior express consent. ("AC"). In Plaintiff's case, he alleges Medicredit placed six (6) calls to his cellular telephone between January 2018 and February 2018 using an artificial or prerecorded voice without his prior express written consent.
Medicredit moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), arguing this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims because the TCPA provision at issue, § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), was unconstitutional at the time it allegedly called Plaintiff, based upon the Supreme Court's recent decision in Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020) ("AAPC"). Alternatively, Medicredit moves to dismiss the class allegations pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 23. Plaintiff filed a response in opposition on February 4, 2021. (Doc. No. 25). On March 8, 2021, Medicredit filed a reply. (Doc. No. 27). Although Medicredit's reply is untimely, the Court has considered it.1 The Court has also considered Plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority filed on February 22, 2021. (Doc. No. 26). The motion is therefore fully briefed and ready for disposition.
Outcome: 02/07/2023 79 ELECTRONIC MINUTE ENTRY (no pdf attached) for proceedings held before District Judge John A. Ross: Motion Hearing held on 2/7/2023 via Zoom Video Conference re Plaintiff's 76 Unopposed MOTION for Settlement approval and Plaintiff's 72 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs, Litigation Expenses, and a Service Award. After discussion with the parties, The Court approves the settlement. Order to issue. (Court Reporter:Lisa Paczkowski, Lisa_Paczkowski@moed.uscourts.gov, 314-244-7985) (proceedings started: 11:01 am) (proceedings ended: 11:22 am) (Deputy Clerk: L. Jones)(Appearance for Plaintiff: Michael Greenwald)(Appearance for Defendant: Maura Monaghan) (LNJ) (Entered: 02/07/2023)
02/07/2023 80 FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge John
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: