Bowens v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., No. 2:2016cv16752 - Document 46 (E.D. La. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER and REASONS denying 24 Motion for Summary Judgment, as stated within document. Signed by Chief Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/23/2017. (NEF: MAG-3) (cbs)

Download PDF
Bowens v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. Doc. 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KAREN BOWENS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-16752 CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC SECTION "N" (3) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court is the motion for summary judgment (Rec. Doc. 24) filed by Plaintiff, Karen Bowens, who alleges that Defendant, Convergent Outsourcing Inc., committed violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., by using an automatic telephone dialing system and pre-recorded message to call Plaintiff’s cell phone number without Plaintiff’s prior consent. Having carefully considered the parties' competing submissions and applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion must be denied. Construing Defendant's submissions in its favor, as Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires at this juncture, the Court, on the instant showing made, is not in a position to conclude, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant's use of her cell phone number. Rather, the declarations of Shannon Picchione and Jeff Hunter, considered together with Dish Network's account records, create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff provided her cell phone number to a Dish Network representative, in August 2014, for account-related purposes. See Rec. Doc. 39-3 at ¶¶ 5 and 7; Rec. Dockets.Justia.com Doc. 39-4 at ¶¶ 8 and 9; Rec. Doc. 39-2, p. 9 of 34 and pp. 19-21 of 34. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that "Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" (Rec. Doc. 24) is DENIED. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of October 2017. _____________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge Clerk to Copy: Magistrate Judge Knowles 2

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.