Last week, a Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied in a putative class action filed against Oasis Power LLC dba Oasis Energy (“Oasis”), a retail energy services provider. Abramson v. Oasis Power LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00479, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129090 (W.D. Pa. July 31, 2018).
Abramson brought a class action suit against Oasis for allegedly making automated telemarketing calls to the phone numbers of Abramson and other putative class members, using an ATDS or predictive dialers.
On June 18, 2018, Oasis moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint for lack of standing, and for failure to state a claim.
Oasis made a factual 12(b)(1) challenge to Abramson’s assertion of jurisdiction, arguing that Abramson lacked Article III standing because he did not suffer a “concrete” and “particularized” injury and therefore cannot establish an “injury in fact.”
Oasis argued that Abramson is a “professional plaintiff who is in the business of bringing TCPA lawsuits” and has filed least 28 other actions across the country. Oasis alleged that Abramson signed up as a customer, and purposely engaged with Oasis only to terminate the services several days later, with the clear aim of encouraging calls and generating litigation. According to Oasis, Abramson “intentionally encourages calls to his cellular telephone number” just for the purposes of getting TCPA damages. Therefore, Abramson does not have particularized and actual injury needed for Article III standing.
Oasis had relied on Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 197 F. Supp. 3d 782, 800 (W.D. Pa. 2016), where the court dismissed plaintiff’s TCPA claim for lack of standing after finding out that plaintiff had bought cell phones solely for the...
