Jones v. Royal Administration Services, No. 15-17328 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against Royal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, seeking to hold Royal vicariously liable for several telephone calls made by telemarketers employed by AAAP. The Ninth Circuit applied the ten non-exhaustive factors set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency 220(2) (1958), and found that AAAP's telemarketers were acting as independent contractors rather than as Royal's agents. Therefore, the court held that Royal was not vicariously liable for the telephone calls and the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Royal.
Court Description: Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The panel held that Royal Administration Services, Inc., could not be held vicariously liable under the TCPA for several phone calls made by telemarketers employed by All American Auto Protection, Inc., because the telemarketers were independent contractors and therefore did not act as Royal’s agents, as defined by federal common law. JONES V. ROYAL ADMIN. SVCS. 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 4, 2018.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.