Sawyer v. KRS Biotechnology, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Sharfman v. InfuCare RX LLC

    6:21-cv-525-WWB-DCI (M.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2022)

    ” Licari, 2019 WL 7423551, at *9 (citing True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 896 F.3d 923, 932 (9th Cir. 2018) (one declaration and one deposition by defendant representatives supported denial of class certification of one of the plaintiffs' proposed classes); Gene And Gene, LLC v. BioPay LLC, 541 F.3d at 329 (relying on the defendant's employees' testimony in upholding denial of class certification); Sawyer v. KRS Biotechnology, Inc., 2018 WL 2425780, at *12 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4214386 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 2018) (finding that the defendant produced predominance-defeating evidence where the defendant offered testimony, as well as an affidavit that its technology officer contacted 5 numbers from a fax log and that each consented to receive transmissions and finding no reason to distinguish between documentary evidence and testimonial evidence at the class certification stage.).

  2. Cooper v. Neilmed Pharm.

    1:16-cv-945 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 9, 2022)

    Though the invitation or permission must be “express,” the Act explains that it may be provided “in writing or otherwise,” id., which includes oral permission. See Sawyer v. KRS Biotechnology, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-550, 2018 WL 2425780, at *11 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Sawyer v. KRS Glob. Biotechnology, Inc., No. 1:16-CV-550, 2018 WL 4214386 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 2018) (“[P]ermission to send fax advertisements may be ‘granted in writing or orally.'” (quoting Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 71 Fed. Reg. 25967, 25971)). Thus, any person who expressly invited the P3990 Fax does not have a viable TCPA claim against NeilMed, whether or not the fax was an “advertisement.”

  3. George v. Shamrock Saloon II LLC

    No. 17-CV-6663 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2020)   Cited 5 times

    Relying on a single case from the Western District of Ohio, Defendants now claim this testimony is sufficient to establish consent. See Defs.' Obj. at 21-22 (citing Sawyer v. KRS Biotechnology Inc., No. 16-CV-550, 2018 WL 2425780 (W.D. Ohio May 30, 2018)). Defendants, however, did not previously argue that relying solely on witness testimony was adequate proof, perhaps because Ms. Killian testified that she had never personally used Call Fire and thus offered little insight into Defendants' messaging.