Gragg v. Orange Cab Company et al

Filing 114

ORDER denying pltf's 85 Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

TORREY GRAGG, on his own behalf and on
behalf of similarly situated persons,
Case No. C12-0576RSL

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

v.
ORANGE CAB COMPANY, INC., a
Washington corporation; and
RIDECHARGE, INC., a Delaware
corporation d/b/a TAXI MAGIC,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment or, Alternatively, Summary Adjudication.” Dkt. # 85. Plaintiff seeks summary
judgment on the merits of his Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) claim or, in the
alternative, a determination of material facts that are not genuinely in dispute. The Court has
already determined that defendants’ TaxiMagic program is not an automatic telephone dialing
system (“ATDS”) but is in fact a limited setup which relies on human intervention to transmit
dispatch notifications to customers. Because plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material
fact regarding his TCPA claim, summary judgment was granted in defendants’ favor. Plaintiffs’
cross-motion for summary judgment on the same claim is therefore DENIED.1

24
25
26

1

Plaintiff did not request oral argument on defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because
the matter has already been decided, his current request for oral argument is DENIED.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

Dated this 14th day of February, 2014.
2
3

A
Robert S. Lasnik

4

United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-2-