Opinion
Case No.: 2:15-cv-919-MHH
03-30-2017
NORMA WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiffs in this action allege that defendant Santander Consumer USA violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), by using an automatic telephone dialing system to call the plaintiffs' cell phones without the plaintiffs' prior express consent. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 31-51; see Doc. 50, p. 4). Santander argues that the TCPA, as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, violates the First Amendment. (Doc. 50, p. 4; Doc. 26, pp. 4-5; see also Doc. 86, pp. 4-5 in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104-MHH). Therefore, Santander argues, because the TCPA is invalid, the Court should enter judgment on the pleadings in its favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Doc. 50, p. 4).
On October 19, 2015, the Court consolidated this action and Case No. 2:14-cv-2104-MHH, Carmen Woods, et al. v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., et al. (Doc. 20). According to Santander, "there are no material differences between how the TCPA claims are pleaded in the Carmen Woods matter and how the TCPA claims are pleaded in [sic] Norma Williams matter." (Doc. 50, ¶ 8). Thus, "instead of submitting new memoranda of law, [Santander] joins and incorporates [in its motion for judgment on the pleadings] the arguments raised in [its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104]." (Docs. 50, 86).
The Court ADOPTS the reasoning and conclusions of its memorandum opinion denying Santander's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104. (Doc. 111, 2:14-cv-2104). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Santander's motion for judgment on the pleadings in this case. (Doc. 50).
DONE and ORDERED this March 30, 2017.
/s/_________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE