RICHARDSON et al v. VERDE ENERGY USA, INC.

Filing 109

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION IS GRANTED AS TO PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS BASED ON DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED USE OF AN "AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEM." PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS BASED ON DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED USE OF AN "AUTOMATI C TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEM." WILL THEREFORE BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, UPON CONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE CLASS ALLEGATION IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE FILING OF CERTAIN BRIEFS IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 12/14/18. 12/18/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(mbh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRIAN RICHARDSON, MICHELLE
HUNT, JOHN WHITE AND
JACQUELINE BOWSER,
Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 15-6325

VERDE ENERGY USA, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of December, 2018, upon consideration of Defendant’s
Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 73 & 75) and briefing in support thereof, and
Plaintiffs’ briefing in opposition thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ claims based on Defendant’s

alleged used of an “automatic telephone dialing system.” Plaintiffs’ claims based on
Defendant’s alleged used of an “automatic telephone dialing system” will therefore be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ claims based on those calls

placed on:
a.

October 26, 2015 to Plaintiff Hunt;

b.

May 13, 2016 to Plaintiff Villiger; and

c.

November 18, 2015 to Plaintiff Bowser;

Plaintiffs’ claims based on the aforementioned calls will therefore be DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
3.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims based on the alleged use

of an artificial or prerecorded voice for the remainder of the calls placed to Plaintiffs.
4.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED as to the remainder of Plaintiff Richardson’s

claims.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Class Allegations (ECF No. 74) and briefing in support thereof, and Plaintiffs’ briefing in
opposition thereto, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Preclude Filing of Certain
Reply Briefs (ECF No. 77) is DENIED AS MOOT.
BY THE COURT:

/S/WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.
_______________________________
WENDY BEETLESTONE, J.

2