Lyman
Lyman v. Quinstreet, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MAXX LYMAN, Case No. 23-cv-05056-PCP
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. DISMISS
QUINSTREET, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 22 Defendant.
12 In this putative class action, plaintiff Maxx Lyman alleges that defendant QuinStreet violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., when it made telemarketing calls to solicit potential insurance customers by contacting numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry (“Do Not Call Registry”). According to Mr. Lyman, QuinStreet’s acts and omissions were negligent, willful, or knowing. Before the Court is QuinStreet’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Mr. Lyman’s complaint for failure to state a claim. QuinStreet argues that Mr. Lyman cannot establish a claim under Section 227(c) of the TCPA because his phone number “is connected to a cell phone” and is therefore “not a ‘residential telephone’” under the statute. For the following reasons, the Court …