TCPA Plaintiff Urges Rejection of LendingTree’s Motion to Dismiss
The U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana should deny LendingTree’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Paul Sapan’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (see 2304100040), said Sapan’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.
opposition brief Friday (docket 8:23-cv-00071). The evidence and pleadings in the case “clearly support personal jurisdiction” over LendingTree, it said. It’s clear LendingTree “conducted itself in such a manner as to avail itself” of California jurisdiction, it said. The evidence establishes that LendingTree’s agents or persons hired on their behalf made calls to Sapan “to be connected via LendingTree’s own software to LendingTree,” it said. “This supports the notion that LendingTree’s calling campaigns conducted by third-parties to contact individuals and then transfer them to LendingTree via LendingTree’s software provider, includes telemarketing to California,” it said. That’s “exactly what happened in this case,” it said. “LendingTree tries to confuse this issue by acting like they are victim of a random caller with a third-party transferring a call to them against their will.”