Valladares v. Blackboard, Inc. et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan on 07/21/2015: Denying Defendants' motions to dismiss 15 and alternatively to stay 15 .Mailed notice (mw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
RAFAEL VALLADARES,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
BLACKBOARD, INC., a Deleware
corporation, and BLACKBOARD
CONNECT, INC., a North Carolina
corporation,
Defendants.
No. 14 C 10272
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendant Blackboard, Inc.’s (Blackboard)
and Blackboard Connect, Inc.’s (Blackboard Connect) motion to dismiss and motion
in the alternative to stay. For the reasons stated below, the motion to dismiss and the
motion to stay are denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Rafael Valladares (Valladares) alleges that Defendants entered into a
contract (Contract) with the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to provide an automated
calling service for CPS. Valladares contends that after the Contract was entered into,
Defendants made numerous unsolicited and unauthorized prerecorded telephone calls
1
(Robocall Notifications) to his cellular telephone on behalf of CPS. Valladares
maintains that although he repeatedly contacted and informed CPS that Defendants
were not authorized to call his cellular phone, the Robocall Notifications continued.
Valladares’ complaint consists of two claims alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 against Defendants.
Defendants now move to dismiss all claims, or in the alternative, to stay the instant
action.
LEGAL STANDARD
In ruling on a motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) (Rule 12(b)(6)), the court must draw all reasonable inferences
that favor the plaintiff, construe the allegations of the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, and accept as true all well-pleaded facts and allegations in
the complaint. Appert v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., 673 F.3d 609, 622 (7th
Cir. 2012); Thompson v. Ill. Dep’t of Prof’l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir.
2002). A plaintiff is required to include allegations in the complaint that “plausibly
suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility above a
‘speculative level’” and “if they do not, the plaintiff pleads itself out of court.”
E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir.
2007)(quoting in part Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007));
see also Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc., 673 F.3d at 622 (stating that “[t]o survive
a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
2
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” and that “[a] claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged”)(quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009))(internal quotations
omitted).
DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that Valladares has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a
valid claim for relief. (Mem. 1-15). Defendants also request, in the alternative, that
the court stay the instant action pending a ruling by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC).
I. Contract
Defendants and Valladares have each attached copies of the Contract to their
briefs. (Ex. A). Generally, a court “may only consider the plaintiff’s complaint
when ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture, LLC, 714
F.3d 501, 505 (7th Cir. 2013). However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(c)
permits certain documents attached to Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss to be
considered. Id. Such documents “are considered part of the pleadings if they are
referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to his claim.” McCready v.
eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 891 (7th Cir. 2006)(internal quotations omitted)(quoting
188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300 F.3d 730, 735 (7th Cir. 2002)). The Contract is
3
referenced in Valladares’ complaint and is central to his TCPA claim. Accordingly,
the court will consider the Contract for purposes of adjudicating the instant motion to
dismiss without converting the motion into a motion for summary judgment.
II. Blackboard
Defendants argue that Blackboard is improperly named as a defendant in this
action and should be removed. (Mem. 10-11). Specifically, Defendants contend that
Valladares makes no allegations against Blackboard. (Mem. 10-11). Defendants
also maintain that Blackboard was not a party to the Contract and should therefore
not be held liable for the alleged actions of its subsidiary, Blackboard Connect.
(Mem. 10-11). Valladares, however, references the Contract in his complaint and
specifically alleges that both Blackboard and Blackboard Connect violated the TCPA
when they called his cellular phone. (Compl. 1-12). Further, to the extent
Defendants argue that Blackboard was not a party to the Contract, page seven of the
Contract lists addresses for both Blackboard and Blackboard Connect and requires
that all notices in connection with the Contract be sent to both Blackboard and
Blackboard Connect. (Ex. A 7). Additional discovery might establish that
Blackboard was not a party to the Contract and not liable in this action. However, at
this juncture, Valladares has sufficiently alleged facts that suggest Blackboard may
have violated the TCPA. (Compl. 1-12). Accordingly, Defendants’ request to
remove Blackboard as a named defendant is denied.
4
III. Motion to Dismiss
Defendants argue that Valladares has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a
valid claim under the TCPA. The TCPA provides in pertinent part the following:
It shall be unlawful . . . to make any call (other than a call made for emergency
purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice - to
any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service,
specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any
service for which the called party is charged for the call . . . .
47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
Defendants dispute the facts alleged in the complaint and argue that they
should not be held liable under the TCPA since they did not send the Robocall
Notifications to Valladares. (Mem. 6-11). Defendants cite to selective provisions of
the Contract that they contend will demonstrate that CPS actually made such
notifications. (Mem. 8-10; Ex. A). Valladares, however, alleges that under the terms
of the Contract only Defendants had the capability to make the Robocall
Notifications. (Resp. 9-14; Ex. A). According to the Contract, Defendants agreed to
provide CPS with services in 2014 that included “[u]nlimited outbound notification
to landline phones, cellular phones, satellite phones, e-mail to computers, e-mail to
data capable devices (e.g. PDA, alpha pager), and text messaging and two-way
messaging to SMS devices (e.g. cell phone and other texting.” (Ex. A). Valladares
contends that, based upon the Contract, all Robocall Notifications from CPS during
that time period were therefore made by Defendants. At this juncture, the facts
presented by Valladares must be accepted as true. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.,
5
673 F.3d at 622. Valladares has thus alleged facts that would suggest that
Defendants made the Robocall Notifications to him on behalf of CPS. Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied. The court notes that at the summary
judgment stage, Valladares will need to point to sufficient evidence to support his
TCPA claim.
IV. Motion to Stay
Defendants request in the alternative that the court stay the instant action,
pending a decision by the FCC. Defendants argue that they have petitioned the FCC
for declaratory relief concerning issues relating to prior consent and the TCPA’s
exemption for certain calls made for emergency purposes. (Mot. 11-15; Ex. 2).
Valladares, however, has not alleged that he consented to receive any of the Robocall
Notifications in question nor does he allege that any such calls were ever identified
as emergency-related. (Compl. 5-6). Unlike the issues before the FCC, the sole
issue before this court at this early stage in the proceedings is whether Valladares has
alleged sufficient facts to state a valid claim under the TCPA. As explained above,
Valladares has met his pleading burden in that regard. At the summary judgment
stage, Defendants will have an opportunity to establish that they are not liable under
the TCPA based upon more complete and detailed evidence gathered during
discovery. However, it is premature at the motion to dismiss stage to consider such
matters. Judicial economy would not be served if this case is allowed to stagnate on
the court’s docket, waiting indefinitely for a decision by the FCC which may or may
6
not be relevant. The court concludes that the appropriate course at this juncture is for
the parties to proceed with discovery. Therefore, the motion to stay is denied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, Defendants’ motion to dismiss and
alternative motion to stay are denied.
___________________________________
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge
Dated: July 21, 2015
7
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?