LoanDepot Cites Mich. TCPA Decision in Support of its Own Motion to Dismiss
The Sept. 12 opinion of the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Flint in Michael Dahdah v. Rocket Mortgage (docket 4:22-cv-11863), in which the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint, supports loanDepot’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.
own Aug. 7 motion to dismiss plaintiff Lee Abrahamian’s first amended TCPA complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) (see 2308080041), said loanDepot’s notice of supplemental authority Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-00728) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. The court in Dahdah found it “difficult to draw the inference” that the calls the plaintiff alleged he received were made “for a solicitation or marketing purpose,” as Daddah's TCPA claim required, said the notice. The court found that the calls identified in the complaint involved no actual communications from Rocket or that Rocket was looking to speak with someone other than Dahdah, it said. To the extent the complaint suggests that Dahdah received some calls where he spoke with Rocket representatives, nothing in the complaint describes the content of such calls, and so the court couldn’t reasonably infer that Rocket made the calls for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of its services, it said. The court found that the threshold of TCPA "plausibility" hadn’t been crossed, it said.