Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Jan. 24, 2025

Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-04572
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Judge Schofield ruled that a jury will decide Telephone Consumer Protection Act damages, up to $500 per violation.

Who this affects

The order affects Plaintiffs and Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. by establishing that a jury will determine the amount of TCPA damages, subject to a maximum of up to $500 per violation under the provision discussed by the court.

What happened

In Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan, the parties disputed how much money Plaintiffs could receive under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for each violation. Plaintiffs argued that the law required $500 per violation.

The court rejected that argument. It ruled that Plaintiffs may receive up to $500 per violation, rather than automatically receiving $500, and that a jury will decide the amount at trial. The court also noted that it had already granted summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs’ claim for increased damages because no reasonable factfinder could find a knowing or willful violation.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield issued the order on January 24, 2025. The order directs that the jury determine the amount of damages for the violations at trial.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Watson v. Manhattan Luxury Automobiles, Inc. d/b/a Lexus Of Manhattan · No. 1:20-cv-04572
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Jan. 24, 2025

Background

Plaintiffs and Defendant filed pretrial memoranda concerning damages under Section 227(c) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal law governing certain telephone communications. Plaintiffs argued that the statute required an award of $500 for each violation. They also argued that the judge, rather than a jury, should determine the amount of statutory damages.

The opinion states that Section 227(c)(5)(B) allows a plaintiff to recover actual monetary loss or receive up to $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. Section 227(c)(5)(C) permits the court, in its discretion, to award treble damages for a willful or knowing violation. The opinion distinguishes Section 227(c) from another TCPA provision that states a plaintiff may receive $500 for each violation.

Ruling

The court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that $500 was mandatory. It ruled that, at trial, Plaintiffs may recover up to $500 per violation. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the judge must determine the statutory-damages amount, ruling that the jury will determine the amount.

The opinion further states that the court previously granted summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiffs’ claim for treble damages because no reasonable finder of fact could find that Defendant knowingly or willfully violated the TCPA and its regulations. This order addresses the amount of damages for the remaining violations at trial; it does not state the final amount of damages.

Disposition

The court ordered that, at trial, Plaintiffs may recover up to $500 in damages per violation, with the amount to be determined by the jury. Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.