Helfrich v. Raven3 Home Buyers LLC

Background

Janet Helfrich brought a proposed class action against Raven3 Home Buyers LLC alleging one claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and its implementing regulations. She alleged that Raven3 made telemarketing and other calls using prerecorded voice messages to consumers without consent.

Helfrich alleged that Raven3 called her cellphone several times beginning in August 2021 and left prerecorded messages offering to buy her house. She said she spoke with Raven3’s salesperson, identified as AJ, more than once and asked that the calls stop, but Raven3 allegedly continued calling and leaving the same type of message. She alleged harm including annoyance, nuisance, invasion of privacy, interference with her use of her cellphone, hardware wear, and use of phone memory.

Motion and legal standard

Raven3 moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court noted that Raven3 had not filed the notice of motion required by the Federal Rules and the Southern District of New York’s local rules. Although that failure alone supported denial of the motion, the court exercised its discretion to consider the merits.

At this stage, the court was required to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in Helfrich’s favor. The complaint had to contain enough factual matter to make the claimed entitlement to relief plausible, rather than merely possible.

Analysis

The relevant TCPA provision prohibits making a call, absent an emergency purpose or the called party’s prior express consent, using an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cellphone. The parties disputed whether the statute and its regulations exempt calls that are not telemarketing or advertisements.

The court did not decide whether such an exemption exists. It held that Helfrich stated a valid claim under either interpretation. Under Helfrich’s interpretation, her allegations that Raven3 sent prerecorded messages to her cellphone without consent, and continued doing so after she asked Raven3 to stop, were sufficient.

The court also found that the claim was sufficient under Raven3’s interpretation, which would require the messages to be advertisements or telemarketing. The court relied on allegations that Raven3 provided real-estate services, used the calls to generate sales and consumer leads, and offered house-buying services. It concluded that Helfrich plausibly alleged the calls advertised the commercial availability of Raven3’s house-buying service.

Ruling and next step

The court denied Raven3’s motion to dismiss. Raven3 was directed to file an answer to the complaint within 14 days of the order. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion sequence at docket entry 18, after which the court would docket a notice of an initial conference.