Williams et al v. Santander Consumer USA Inc, No. 2:2015cv00919 - Document 63 (N.D. Ala. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Court ADOPTS the reasoning and conclusions of its memorandum opinion denying Santanders motion to dismiss the plaintiffs fourth amended complaint in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104. (Doc. 111, 2:14-cv-2104). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Santanders motion for judgment on the pleadings in this case. (Doc. 50). Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 3/30/2017. (KEK)
Download PDF
Williams et al v. Santander Consumer USA Inc Doc. 63 FILED 2017 Mar-30 AM 09:37 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION NORMA WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant. } } } } } } } } } } Case No.: 2:15-cv-919-MHH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The plaintiffs in this action allege that defendant Santander Consumer USA violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), by using an automatic telephone dialing system to call the plaintiffs’ cell phones without the plaintiffs’ prior express consent. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 31– 51; see Doc. 50, p. 4). Santander argues that the TCPA, as amended by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, violates the First Amendment. (Doc. 50, p. 4; Doc. 26, pp. 4–5; see also Doc. 86, pp. 4–5 in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104-MHH). Therefore, Santander argues, because the TCPA is invalid, the Court should enter judgment on the pleadings in its favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Doc. 50, p. 4). 1 Dockets.Justia.com On October 19, 2015, the Court consolidated this action and Case No. 2:14cv-2104-MHH, Carmen Woods, et al. v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., et al. (Doc. 20). According to Santander, “there are no material differences between how the TCPA claims are pleaded in the Carmen Woods matter and how the TCPA claims are pleaded in [sic] Norma Williams matter.” (Doc. 50, ¶ 8). Thus, “instead of submitting new memoranda of law, [Santander] joins and incorporates [in its motion for judgment on the pleadings] the arguments raised in [its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104].” (Docs. 50, 86). The Court ADOPTS the reasoning and conclusions of its memorandum opinion denying Santander’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fourth amended complaint in Case No. 2:14-cv-2104. (Doc. 111, 2:14-cv-2104). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Santander’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this case. (Doc. 50). DONE and ORDERED this March 30, 2017. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2