This 5 12 months previous TCPA case, Salerno v. Credit score One Financial institution, N.A., 15-CV-516 (JLS), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133636 (W.D.N.Y. July 28, 2020), continues to be churning.
As background, in June 2015, Plaintiff Kimberly Salerno filed a TCPA swimsuit alleging 466 robocalls on her cellphone—a quantity she alleged she by no means offered to Defendant Credit score One— in connection to cash that her boyfriend owed Credit score One on his personal separate account. Credit score One compelled arbitration on account of the arbitration provision of their bank card agreements. After years of battle, the Arbitrator awarded her $500 in damages for every name, for a complete award of $233,000. Credit score One then requested a second de novo arbitration earlier than a 3 member panel. In a call dated September 21, 2018, the panel awarded Plaintiff $232,500 in statutory damages for 465 calls made with out her categorical prior consent.
On December 21, 2018, Credit score One moved to vacate the Arbitrators’ Award in addition to to seal quite a few arbitration paperwork. On January 11, 2019. Plaintiff cross-moved to verify the Arbitrators’ Award, and for post-award prejudgment curiosity (basically extra cash a courtroom can award based mostly on curiosity the judgment might have earned over the time period from when the claimant was entitled to obtain these monies). The choose affirmed the $232,500 award however the Movement for prejudgment curiosity was denied.
The choose discovered that the whopping $232,500 damages award towards Credit score One “entails a statutory damages treatment that far exceeds precise damages and is essentially punitive in nature.” As such, the choose held denying prejudgment curiosity acceptable. Some good with the dangerous right here people. Will control this one in case there are any extra developments.
© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNationwide Regulation Evaluate, Quantity X, Quantity 212