St. Clair v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

Good Law
222 F. Supp. 3d 779·2016 WL 7489047·66 Communications Reg. (P&F) 47·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180463
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 30, 2016Case No. 16-cv-04911-VCCalifornia1,101 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chhabria, J.

*780 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

Michael St. Clair has sued CVS Pharmacy under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for sending automated calls to his cell phone about prescription refills, even after he requested that the calls stop. Specifically, St. Clair alleges that he received automated calls from CVS, then called CVS, and asked “Kim” to have him removed from the calling list. Kim said that she would try, but the calls continued at “an excessive and harassing rate.” CVS has Sled a motion to dismiss, asserting that it is not liable as a matter of law because unwanted automated calls about prescription refills are subject to the “emergency purposes” exemption from TCPA liability.

As pertinent here, the TCPA prevents companies from making automated calls to people’s cell phones unless the calls are made for “emergency pux-poses” or “with the prior express consent” of the recipient. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1). Because St. Clair alleges he did not consent to receive the calls (at least the calls that came in after he asked CVS to stop), the question is simply whether the emergency purposes exemption applies. As a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation, it does not.…

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.