A federal judge in Maryland has denied a request for a summary judgment against a plaintiff suing for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even though the defendant submitted recordings of 89 phone conversations with the plaintiff where revocation of consent was never once mentioned.
The case is Ginwright v. Exeter Finance. A copy of the original complaint can be accessed here.
The plaintiff is suing the auto lender saying he was contacted without his consent on his cell phone by an automated telephone dialing system. Exeter claims that the plaintiff provided the phone number on his loan application.
Along with denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the judge also denied class-action certification in favor of the plaintiff.
Exeter attempted to use a ruling from the Second Circuity Court of Appeals in the case of Reyes v. Lincoln Automotive Financial Services, in which the court ruled that consent can not be revoked when it is part of a contract. The judge in the Ginwright case, Theodore Chuang, said that the ruling conflicts with the Federal Communications Commissions’s rulings on the matter.
Most of the filings and rulings in the case have been sealed, at the request of the defendant.
A published report indicates that the defendant submitted 89 call recordings, “none of which contained a whisper that the calls should stop.”
The Court ruled that because not all calls were submitted and because the plaintiff asserts that he revoked consent, that the case was triable.