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.

3 Citing cases

  1. 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).

  2. 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.

  3. Frausto v. IC Sys. Inc.

    No. 10 CV 1363 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2011)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the defendant debt collector was the equivalent of the party to whom the plaintiff had provided her cell phone number for purposes of the TCPA

    See In re: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 23 F.C.C.R. at ¶ 9 (F.C.C. 2007). As to Plaintiff's argument that he revoked his consent, he cites my ruling in Sengenberger v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 1791270, *4 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2010). In that case, plaintiff debtor sued a collection agency for its use of auto-dialed, pre-recorded calls.