Manuel v. NRA Group, LLC et al

Filing 79

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED for purposes of clarification that the sole issue for trial shall be whether plaintiff should be awarded treble damages. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/7/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PETERSON MANUEL,
Plaintiff
v.
NRA GROUP, LLC,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-274
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2016, upon consideration of the parties’
apparent dispute concerning the issues remaining for trial in this case, (see Doc. 73
at 2-4; Doc. 75 at 17-19), wherein plaintiff Peterson Manuel (“Manuel”) alleges that
the issue of statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(“TCPA”) was resolved by this court at summary judgment, when the court held
that “[u]ncontroverted record evidence establishes that Mercury Dialer placed 146
calls to Manuel,” (Doc. 52 at 4 n.2), such that the only question for trial is the issue
of treble damages, (Doc. 73 at 3, 5), but wherein defendant NRA Group, LLC
(“NRA”) posits that the issue of statutory damages was not resolved by the court’s
prior opinion because Manuel must further demonstrate that he either answered
his phone or heard his phone buzz or ring for each of the subject calls, (Doc. 75 at
18), and the court noting that while the Third Circuit has not addressed the dispute
sub judice, the Ninth Circuit has found that a “call” within the TCPA means “to
communicate with or try to get into communication with a person by telephone,”
Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2009), and other

district courts have relied on this definition in finding that a plaintiff need not
answer or hear a call to prove prohibited conduct under the TCPA, but need only
prove the act of placing the call itself, King v. Time Warner Cable, 113 F. Supp. 3d
718, 725 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Fillichio v. M.R.S. Assocs., Inc., No. 09-61629, 2010 WL
4261442, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2010); see also Forrest v. Genpact Servs., LLC, 962
F. Supp. 2d 734, 737 (M.D. Pa. 2013), it is hereby ORDERED for purposes of
clarification that the sole issue for trial shall be whether plaintiff should be awarded
treble damages.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

2