Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Sengenberger v. Credit Control Services, Inc.

No. 09 C 2796 (N.D. Ill. May. 5, 2010)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Sengenberger v. Credit Control Services, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Dish Network LLC

    256 F. Supp. 3d 810 (C.D. Ill. 2017)   Cited 21 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that $8.1 billion dollar award is excessive and violates due process, and that a statutory damages of $280,000,000, representing approximately 20% of after-tax profits for 2016, is appropriate and constitutionally proportionate, reasonable and consistent with due process

    Because the award in excess of $8.1 billion violates due process, the Court will not exercise its discretionary authority to increase the award. The Court, therefore, will not address the split of authority on the requirements to prove knowing violations (see e.g., Lary v. Trinity Physician Financial & Insurance Services, 780 F.3d 1101, 1106–07 (11th Cir. 2015) (must prove actual knowledge that the act violated the TCPA); contra e.g., Sengenberger v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 2010 WL 1791270, at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2010) (must only prove the act was intentional, not accidental)) or whether the enhanced award would constitute punitive damages see Alea London Ltd. v. American Home Services, Inc., 638 F.3d 768, 778 (11th Cir. 2011) (enhanced awards up to $1,500 under the TCPA were more compensatory than punitive). G. Counts VII and VII California Claims

  2. Lee v. LoanDepot.Com, LLC

    Case No. 14-CV-01084-EFM (D. Kan. Aug. 17, 2016)   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    See In re Monitronics Intern., Inc., 2014 WL 316476, at *5 (N.D.W.V. Jan. 28, 2014) (collecting cases). Sengenberger v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 1791270, at *6 (N.D.Ill. May 5, 2010). Id. (citing 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)).

  3. Davis v. Diversified Consultants, Inc.

    36 F. Supp. 3d 217 (D. Mass. 2014)   Cited 34 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that LiveVox has the present capacity to store telephone numbers and relying on witness testimony that LiveVox has the present capacity for random or sequential number generation

    While neither the TCPA nor FCC regulations provide a definition for willful and knowing, most courts have interpreted the willful or knowing standard to require only that a party's actions were intentional, not that it was aware that it was violating the statute. See, e.g., Alea London Ltd., 638 F.3d at 776 (holding that the TCPA requires mere “knowing” conduct); Harris v. World Fin. Network Nat. Bank, 867 F.Supp.2d 888, 896–97 (E.D.Mich.2012); Sengenberger v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 1791270 (N.D.Ill. May 5, 2010); Bridgeview Health Care Ctr. Ltd. v. Clark, 2013 WL 1154206 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 19, 2013).

  4. Beal v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.

    956 F. Supp. 2d 962 (W.D. Wis. 2013)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that consumers may revoke consent orally

    Other courts have concluded that consent can be revoked, but only through writing. E.g., Starkey v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, 2010 WL 2541756, *5–6 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2010); Cunningham v. Credit Management, L.P., 2010 WL 3791104, *5 (N.D.Tex. Aug. 30, 2010); Moore v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, 2011 WL 4345703, *11 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2011); Moltz v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, 2011 WL 3360010, *6 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2011); Sengenberger v. Credit Control Services, Inc., 2010 WL 1791270, *4 (N.D.Ill. May 5, 2010). In those cases, the courts relied on the fact that the cases involved debt collection calls and that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act generally applies to debt collection.