Madej

Madej v. Synchrony Bank

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 20214:21-cv-02713California1,018 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 JAKUB MADEJ, CASE NO. 21-cv-02713-YGR

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS, TRANSFER,

vs. OR STAY

SYNCHRONY BANK, Re: Dkt. No. 38 Defendant.

Plaintiff Jakub Madej first filed an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) in the Eastern District of New York on April 6, 2021, against defendant Synchrony Bank, incorrectly named as Synchrony Financial, in connection with 572 alleged robocalls made by defendant between November 2020 and March 2021. (Dkt. No. 27.) One week later, plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a TCPA action in this District on April 15, 2021, against defendant PayPal Credit, which has since been substituted for the proper defendant Synchrony Bank. (Dkt. No. 1.) The complaint in this action alleges defendant made at least 40 robocalls in November 2020. (Id. ¶ 1.) Despite filing an answer on June 10, 2020 (Dkt. No. 15), which…

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.