Parties ‘Very Far Apart’ in TCPA Class Action vs. Diamond Resorts
It’s possible that plaintiff Paul Sapan may move to add a third-party telemarketer as a defendant in his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Diamond Resorts, said a joint scheduling and Rule 26(f) report Monday (docket 8:23-cv-00147) in U.S.…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. The parties had settlement discussions, but their initial positions “were very far apart,” and both sides “elected to continue with case prosecution,” said the report. The parties estimate “at this early point in advance of discovery and motion practice” that a March 2025 jury trial would last five days should Sapan’s proposed class be certified, it said. The trial should be no longer than two or three days “in the event class certification is denied,” it said. Sapan’s Jan. 24 complaint alleges Diamond engages in a scheme to sell timeshares via “cold calls” to residential phone numbers listed on the federal do not call registry (see 2301240064). Diamond denies TCPA wrongdoing, contending Sapan’s number is for business, not residential purposes, and the caller “had an established business relationship with the called party,” said the report.