Shupe et al v. Bank of America NA

Filing 180

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The 172 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted; Plaintiff's 156 Motion to Compel is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant's 129 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and this case is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 3/11/2015. (ALS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Richard Shupe, et al., Plaintiffs, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-13-00019-TUC-JGZ Bank of America NA, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau that recommends granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 172.) As thoroughly explained by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, because they failed to show that any of the telephone calls made by Defendant were pre-recorded. Plaintiffs are similarly not entitled to relief on their state law claim, under A.R.S. § 42-1282, because calls that are permitted under federal law are expressly permitted under the Arizona statute and therefore are not unlawful. Finally, Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence that would entitle them to relief on their claim for invasion of privacy under Arizona state law. As Plaintiffs’ objections do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Rateau, Plaintiff’s objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted. 27 At the time the Report and Recommendation was filed, Plaintiffs’ Motion to 28 Compel was pending. (Doc. 144.) Although the Report and Recommendation doesn’t 1 address the pending Motion, the issue of outstanding material evidence is raised by 2 Plaintiffs in their Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 178) and in their 3 Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 162). Plaintiffs assert a 4 need for additional time to locate “four individuals who hold material evidence in support 5 of Plaintiffs [sic] claims.” Pls.’ Resp. to Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 10/28/14 (Doc. 162) 3:3- 6 5. These individuals include Jose Ascension Sontoyo, the third party previously listed for 7 the Plaintiffs’ home phone number, as well as three individuals employed by Defendant 8 who allegedly made calls to Plaintiffs’ home number. Although Rule 56(d) does allow 9 for additional discovery while a motion for summary judgment is pending, Plaintiffs have 10 not explained in an affidavit how the “sought-after facts are ‘essential’ to resist the 11 summary judgment motion.” State of California, on behalf of California Department of 12 Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 1998). Locating Mr. 13 Sontoyo is immaterial to the issue of whether the calls were pre-recorded for the purposes 14 of liability under the TCPA. Similarly, the identification of individuals who placed calls 15 to Plaintiffs’ home number would only lend further support to the Court’s finding that the 16 calls were not in fact pre-recorded and therefore did not violate the TCPA. 17 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 172) is accepted and adopted; 19 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc 156) is DENIED AS MOOT; 20 3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 129) is GRANTED and this 21 22 23 24 case is dismissed; 4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Dated this 11th day of March, 2015. 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?