Alexis et al v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to Dismiss (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CARMELITA ALEXIS, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05446-VC

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 42

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The motion to dismiss the claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is denied.

14

Even if the plaintiffs originally consented to receive calls from Corinthian on their cell phones,

15

they allege the calls persisted after they revoked their consent, which is sufficient to state a claim.

16

See, e.g., Gager v. Dell Financial Services, LLC, 727 F.3d 265, 272 (3d Cir. 2013) ("In sum, we

17

find that the TCPA provides consumers with the right to revoke their prior express consent to be

18
contacted on cellular phones by autodialing systems"); In the Matter of Rules and Regulations
19
20

Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, SoundBite Communications, Inc.,

21

27 FCC Rcd. 15391 (Nov. 26, 2012). Further, Alexis, Lopez, and Nichols have alleged they

22

encountered an automated prompt system, and Davis has alleged she picked up a call from

23

Corinthian which was followed by a period of silence and a statement that she should hold to be

24
25

connected with a live representative. These allegations, coupled with the allegations pointing to
Corinthian's job postings, are sufficient to state a claim that Corinthian called plaintiffs using an

26
27
28

automatic telephone dialing system.
The motion to dismiss the claim under California Business and Professions Code section

1

17200 is granted, because the second amended complaint does not allege the kind of economic

2

injury contemplated by Kwikset v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011). It alleges only that the

3

phone calls "diminished the value of the [cell phones] for which Plaintiffs paid," without

4

explaining how this could plausibly be so. Because the plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities

5

to amend their complaint, and because they have identified no way in which they could cure this

6

pleading defect in response to the motion, dismissal of this claim is with prejudice.

7
The hearing previously scheduled for July 10, 2014 is vacated. The case management
8
9
10

conference previously scheduled for September 16 is now moved to Tuesday, July 29, 2014 at 10
a.m.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 8, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2