De la Cabada v. Ytel, Inc.

Background

Laura C. De la Cabada and Debra Williams brought the action against Ytel, Inc. on behalf of themselves and as a proposed class action. They alleged that Ytel violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by knowingly facilitating prerecorded calls and text messages that Manasseh Jordan Ministries and Yakim Manasseh Jordan sent without recipients’ prior express consent.

According to the amended complaint, Ytel provided calling and texting systems capable of using automatic telephone dialing systems and prerecorded messages. The plaintiffs alleged that Ytel provided custom short codes and local phone numbers that helped avoid carrier blocking, allowed telephone-number spoofing, and continued to provide its platform despite notice of the alleged unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs also alleged that De la Cabada had previously obtained a default judgment against Manasseh Jordan Ministries and Yakim Manasseh Jordan in an earlier related proceeding, and that her counsel had repeatedly notified Ytel about that proceeding and the allegations.

The plaintiffs asserted two TCPA claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii): one concerning prerecorded voice calls and one concerning text messages. They proposed a Pre-Recorded Voice Class and a Text Message Class.

Ytel’s Motion

Ytel moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Ytel argued that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that Ytel “made” the calls and texts.

The court explained that a TCPA claim requires allegations that the defendant called a cellular telephone number using an automatic telephone dialing system without the recipient’s prior express consent. The court also stated that a person may “make” a call either by directly making it or through an agency relationship with the person who made it. The plaintiffs pursued direct liability, alleging that Ytel itself made the challenged communications.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the complaint’s conclusory statements that Ytel physically made the calls and sent the texts were insufficient by themselves. The allegations instead indicated that Manasseh Jordan Ministries actually made the communications.

The court nevertheless concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged Ytel was sufficiently involved to be treated as having made the communications under the TCPA. The court considered factors identified in Federal Communications Commission guidance, including who created the message content, who decided when and to whom messages were sent, whether the entity enabled spoofing or helped block caller identification, and whether a calling-platform provider knowingly allowed unlawful use of its platform.

The court found no plausible allegations that Ytel created the messages or decided when, how, or to whom they were sent. But it found that the allegations plausibly supported an inference that Ytel assisted with spoofing and avoiding caller blocking. The allegations also supported an inference that Ytel knew about Manasseh Jordan Ministries’ repeated TCPA violations and continued to provide its platform, including those features.

The court distinguished a prior summary-judgment decision because this case concerned whether the complaint’s allegations, rather than evidence, supported an inference of notice. The court also concluded that the earlier default judgment against Manasseh Jordan Ministries established that entity’s liability in that earlier related proceeding, and that the complaint plausibly alleged Ytel would have been aware of that liability.

Ytel also argued that it was a common carrier exempt from TCPA liability. The court rejected that argument at this stage, explaining that Ytel had not identified authority holding that a common carrier could not be liable when its involvement was sufficient for it to be treated as having made the unlawful communications.

Disposition

The court denied Ytel’s motion to dismiss. The order stated that the motion’s denial was based on the complaint’s plausible allegations that Ytel was liable under the TCPA and that the order disposed of Docket No. 21.