Class Action Targets Electric Company Over Telemarketing Calls
A class action suit filed by a Pennsylvania resident seeks damages from Discount Power Inc.
April 30, 2018 at 03:51 PM
4 minute read
Tired of robocalls and telemarketing calls interrupting his meals, Pennsylvania resident Stewart Abramson filed a federal class action lawsuit Friday in Connecticut against Discount Power Inc. The lawsuit seeks up to $1,500 for every call in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
While almost everyone can relate to getting nuisance calls, experts in creditors' rights law say the suit faces an uphill battle.
“It's a tough case to win,” said attorney Myles Alderman Jr., managing member of Alderman and Alderman, which has several offices in Connecticut. “Some courts believe TCPA was not meant for class actions, and that it was intended to protect individuals from abusive phone calls.” Alderman is not involved in the litigation.
The claim says potential class members could include anyone with records of unwanted calls from Discount Power beginning April 27, 2014.
Creditors' and debtors' rights attorney Marc Miller, of counsel for Cohen & Wolf, said Monday many potential lawsuits regarding TCPA are settled before they make their way to the courts.
“The amount of money involved is relatively small and, in many cases, it's an opportunity for some lawyers to collect a quick buck,” said Miller, who represented a defendant in a similar case related to unwanted faxes, but is not involved in the Abramson case.
Each TCPA violation can cost a defendant $500, while each willful violation costs $1,500, so most cases settle.
“If it's $1,500 we are talking about, the plaintiff will get $1,000 and the attorney $500 and no lawsuit is filed,” Miller said. “It's not worth it for the defendants to fight it.”
Attorneys for Abramson filed the lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court in the District of Connecticut in Bridgeport.
But proving those violations are not as easy as it might seem, Miller said.
“You must show it was done willfully to get the $1,500 per call,” Miller said. “There is some way the defendants got that phone number. You have to prove they did not get that number by some actions you have undertaken. That is not always easy to do.”
Friday's lawsuit alleges Discount Power called Abramson several times without first getting consent, as required under the TCPA. Abramson wrote Discount Power, which offers low-cost electricity options, asking if it had any evidence he consented to receive the unwanted calls at home, according to the suit. Discount Power never responded, the complaint states.
The lawsuit also states Discount Power violated TCPA because the company making the call never identified itself.
“In order to find out who has called him, Mr. Abramson pressed 'five' in response to the prerecorded message that he received on March 16,” the complaint states. “Mr. Abramson spoke with a telemarketing agent who said that he was with Discount Power.”
The lawsuit cites one count: violation of the TCPA's prerecorded call provisions. The suit seeks injunctive relief prohibiting the use of prerecorded messages by Discount Power and up to $1,500 for each violation, or phone call.
No one from Discount Power's legal department responded to a request for comment Monday. The company's attorney, Nancy Hancock of Pullman & Comley in Bridgeport, did not respond to a request for comment.
The plaintiff has three attorneys: Todd Michaelis of Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey in Waterbury, Anthony Paronich of Broderick & Paronich in Boston, and Matthew McCue of The Law Office of Matthew McCue in Natick, Massachusetts. McCue referred all comments to Paronich, who declined to comment. Michaelis did not respond to a request for comment.
The case will be heard by Judge Stefan Underhill.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDiscovery Seeks to Link Yale University to Doctor in Fertility Scandal
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Can a Law Firm Institutionalize Its Culture? Boies Schiller’s New Chairman Will Try
- 2Full 8th Circuit Hears First Amendment Challenge to School District’s ‘Equity Training’
- 3Exploring Generative AI’s Impact on Intellectual Property
- 4Training Lawyers in AI and Using AI to Boost Training
- 5EB-5 Rebounds After a Rocky Year: Challenges of 2024 Lay Groundwork for a Booming 2025
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250