Third Circuit Reverses District Court Order in TCPA “Called Party” Case Against Bank of America

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Mark Leyse brought an action against Bank of America under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) after receiving a prerecorded telemarketing call on the landline he shares with his roommate, Genevieve Dutriaux. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of statutory standing because Dutriaux, not Leyse, was the intended recipient of the call, or the “called party”.

On appeal, however, the Third Circuit has found the District Court to be in error for considering the motion to dismiss, and concluded that Leyse does indeed have statutory standing. The Court’s reasoning is that he is a regular user of the phone line and an occupant of the residence, and that this brings him within the language of the TCPA and the zone of interests it protects.

An attorney representing Dutriaux and Leyse filed multiple class-action lawsuits against Bank of America in multiple districts. The action on appeal in this matter, Mark Leyse v. Bank of America National Association, is from the District of New Jersey, and Leyse is the only named plaintiff.

The parties agree that Leyse’s roommate was the intended recipient of the call. But Leyse claims that he regularly used the phone, and the fact that he was Dutriaux’s roommate indicates that he, too, had a privacy interest in avoiding telemarketing calls to their shared home. Under the zone-of-interests test, Leyse has alleged enough to survive a motion to dismiss, and it was error for the District Court to dismiss the complaint for lack of statutory standing. The Court notes that it is the actual recipient, intended or not, who suffered the nuisance or invasion of privacy. The burden of proof will be on Leyse in the District Court to demonstrate that he answered the telephone when the robocall was received.

In an Opinion filed earlier this week, the Third Circuit has vacated the District Court’s order of dismissal, allowing the case to proceed.

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Banks and Credit Grantors, Credit Grantors, TCPA .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar mike kaufmann says:

    My brother’s wife’s cousin’s half brother received a message from Bank of America, I must have standing to sue as well. Time to look for an attorney….

  • avatar bill-jones says:

    Mike – Please reread the article so you understand why statutory standing was granted in this case and why your comment is way off mark. I will agree that this case in general is abuse of the TCPA, but the opinion that a person WHO RESIDES IN THE RESIDENCE, no matter what relation and shares a common communication device, has statutory standing is correct; even though the call was not directed to the person bringing suit. I see why there are so many advertisements on this site for “To the Point”, “Clarification”, and “Understanding” media products.

Leave a Reply