Williams et al v. Santander Consumer USA Inc

Filing 63

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Court ADOPTS the reasoning and conclusions of its memorandum opinion denying Santanders motion to dismiss the plaintiffs fourth amended complaint in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104. (Doc. 111, 2:14-cv-2104). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Santanders motion for judgment on the pleadings in this case. (Doc. 50). Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 3/30/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Mar-30 AM 09:37
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NORMA WILLIAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,
INC.,
Defendant.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Case No.: 2:15-cv-919-MHH

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiffs in this action allege that defendant Santander Consumer USA
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.
§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), by using an automatic telephone dialing system to call the
plaintiffs’ cell phones without the plaintiffs’ prior express consent. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 31–
51; see Doc. 50, p. 4). Santander argues that the TCPA, as amended by the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, violates the First Amendment. (Doc. 50, p. 4; Doc.
26, pp. 4–5; see also Doc. 86, pp. 4–5 in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104-MHH).
Therefore, Santander argues, because the TCPA is invalid, the Court should enter
judgment on the pleadings in its favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(c). (Doc. 50, p. 4).

1

On October 19, 2015, the Court consolidated this action and Case No. 2:14cv-2104-MHH, Carmen Woods, et al. v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., et al.
(Doc. 20). According to Santander, “there are no material differences between
how the TCPA claims are pleaded in the Carmen Woods matter and how the TCPA
claims are pleaded in [sic] Norma Williams matter.” (Doc. 50, ¶ 8). Thus, “instead
of submitting new memoranda of law, [Santander] joins and incorporates [in its
motion for judgment on the pleadings] the arguments raised in [its motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104].”
(Docs. 50, 86).
The Court ADOPTS the reasoning and conclusions of its memorandum
opinion denying Santander’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fourth amended
complaint in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104. (Doc. 111, 2:14-cv-2104). Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Santander’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this case.
(Doc. 50).
DONE and ORDERED this March 30, 2017.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2