Shcherb v. Angi Homeservices Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-00367
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Shcherb v. Angi Homeservices, Judge Vyskocil dismissed TCPA claims against three corporate defendants with prejudice because the complaint lacked facts supporting agency liability.
Lazar Shcherb’s TCPA claims against Angi Homeservices Inc., Angieslist, Inc., and IAC/Interactive Corp. were dismissed with prejudice. The opinion states that the action would proceed against HomeAdvisor, Inc.
What happened
In Shcherb v. Angi Homeservices Inc., Lazar Shcherb alleged that HomeAdvisor, Inc. made illegal telephone calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. He also sued Angi Homeservices Inc., Angieslist, Inc., and IAC/Interactive Corp., claiming they were liable because of their corporate relationships with HomeAdvisor.
The court said that corporate ownership or affiliation alone does not make one company responsible for another company’s actions. Shcherb’s amended complaint did not include specific facts showing that HomeAdvisor acted as an agent for the three other defendants, or that those defendants themselves took part in the alleged violations.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the three defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice and closed the case as to them. The opinion states that the action would proceed against HomeAdvisor, Inc.
The detailed version
- Shcherb v. Angi Homeservices Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00367
- Vyskocil
- May 21, 2020
Background
Lazar Shcherb filed a complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). He alleged that HomeAdvisor, Inc. made the telephone calls at issue. He also named Angi Homeservices Inc., Angieslist, Inc., and IAC/Interactive Corp. as defendants.
The court had previously dismissed Shcherb’s first complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, but allowed him to amend. The earlier order identified a pleading problem involving whether HomeAdvisor acted as an agent for the other defendants. Shcherb filed an amended complaint, and the three other defendants moved to dismiss it.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a complaint must include enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than merely reciting legal elements or making conclusory statements. It held that corporate ownership, control, or affiliation does not automatically create liability for another company’s conduct.
The amended complaint alleged that the defendants were related as parent, child, sibling, or subsidiary corporations and that one moving defendant owned or controlled an interest in HomeAdvisor. But it did not include specific facts showing that HomeAdvisor acted as an agent of any of the moving defendants when it made the alleged calls. The court also noted that the amended complaint did not allege specific conduct by the moving defendants that violated the TCPA.
The court stated that Shcherb had been notified of this deficiency in the earlier order but did not correct it in the amended complaint. It therefore applied the rule that an amended complaint may be dismissed with prejudice when the plaintiff does not correct defects identified in the original pleading. The opinion distinguished the moving defendants from HomeAdvisor, which was not a party to the renewed motion and against which the court stated the action would proceed.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at docket entry 31 and close the case as to Angi Homeservices Inc., Angieslist, Inc., and IAC/Interactive Corp. The opinion states that the action would proceed against HomeAdvisor, Inc.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.