Ewing

Ewing v. SQM US, Inc.

Good Law
211 F. Supp. 3d 1289·2016 WL 5846494·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143272
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 2016Case No.: 3:16-CV-1609-CAB-JLBCalifornia1,673 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Honbencivengo, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The motion has been fully briefed and the Court deems it suitable for submission without oral argument. For the following reasons, the motion is granted and the first amended complaint (“FAC”) is dismissed with prejudice.

I. Allegations in the Complaint

The factual allegations in the FAC are straightforward. On October 21, 2015, Defendants allegedly called Plaintiffs cellular telephone one time using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). [Doc. No. 8 at ¶¶ 15-18.] The telephone number that Defendants allegedly called was “assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1).” [Id. at ¶ 19.] Plaintiff alleges that he did not provide his cellular telephone number to Defendants or give them permission to call his cellular telephone. [Id. at T21.]

Based on this single alleged telephone call, Plaintiff asserts claims for negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”). Plaintiff also seeks to represent a class consisting of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.