Bowens v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.

Filing 46

ORDER and REASONS denying 24 Motion for Summary Judgment, as stated within document. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/23/2017. (NEF: MAG-3) (cbs)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KAREN BOWENS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-16752 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC SECTION "N" (3) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court is the motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 24) filed by Plaintiff, Karen Bowens, who alleges that Defendant, Convergent Outsourcing Inc., committed violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., by using an automatic telephone dialing system and pre-recorded message to call Plaintiff’s cell phone number without Plaintiff’s prior consent. Having carefully considered the parties' competing submissions and applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion must be denied. Construing Defendant's submissions in its favor, as Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires at this juncture, the Court, on the instant showing made, is not in a position to conclude, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant's use of her cell phone number. Rather, the declarations of Shannon Picchione and Jeff Hunter, considered together with Dish Network's account records, create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff provided her cell phone number to a Dish Network representative, in August 2014, for account-related purposes. See Rec. Doc. 39-3 at ¶¶ 5 and 7; Rec. Doc. 39-4 at ¶¶ 8 and 9; Rec. Doc. 39-2, p. 9 of 34 and pp. 19-21 of 34. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Rec. Doc. 24) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of October 2017. _____________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge Clerk to Copy: Magistrate Judge Knowles 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?