'Annoyance Lawyer' Loses Pro Se Appeal Targeting Alarm.com Over Robocalls
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a district court judge was not required to provide any written reasoning when he dismissed a complaint from Todd Bank—who was ejected from a Second Circuit argument last year for "discourtesy"—alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
September 17, 2020 at 01:35 PM
4 minute read
Todd Bank, the self-branded "annoyance lawyer" who was removed last year from appellate court arguments over "discourteous" comments to the judges hearing his case, has lost his pro se appeal in a separate lawsuit targeting Alarm.com over robocalls.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Wednesday that a lower court judge was not required to provide any written reasoning when he dismissed Bank's complaint for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In a summary order, a three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based appeals court said that Bank had failed to allege that Alarm.com or Alliance Security, a third-party security-system dealer, were in any way connected to the bothersome calls, which according to the complaint featured a pre-recorded "robotic-sounding voice."
Bank, a solo lawyer based in Kew Gardens, has made the robocalls a main subject of his practice, filing numerous lawsuits under the TCPA in federal court.
But it was Bank's outburst last December in a client's challenge to a local bar rule in the Eastern District of New York that prompted a heated exchange with Second Circuit Judge Denny Chin and quickly led to his being escorted out of the courtroom. Audio of the astonishing incident captured Bank saying that Chin's question during oral arguments had "nothing to do with this case" and then implying that Chin had not "read the briefs thoroughly."
"Are you serious, judge? With all due respect, I don't know what to say," Bank said.
When the lawyer later tried to claim his rebuttal, Judge Barrington D. Parker asked to have him removed, saying that he had "waived" his time.
None of the judges from last December's panel were on hand to hear Bank's appeal in the Alarm.com case.
That panel, which included Judges Gerard E. Lynch, Richard J. Sullivan and Michael H. Park, in a six-page order Wednesday said that Bank's appeal ignored the merits of the lower court's dismissal, and did not cite to any binding precedent that required U.S. District Judge William F. Kuntz II to enter a written ruling.
Bank, the panel said, had already amended his complaint once in the district court, and as a lawyer, was not entitled to any "special solicitude."
"The district court was therefore permitted to exercise its discretion to deny Bank yet another bite at the apple," the judges wrote.
In a statement, Bank said that the rule should not apply where the ruling on appeal "provides no reasoning and thus precludes the appellant from addressing those aspects of the ruling with which the appellant takes issue."
"Perhaps it is not surprising that I did not find any authority, from either the Second Circuit nor any other circuit, stating that it is improper for an appellant's brief to incorporate a lower-court brief where the ruling on appeal contains no explanation," he said. "Even in its summary order, the court cites no such authority"
While the panel noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "expressly do not require" district court judges to provide reasoning when they decide Rule 12 dismissal motions, the judges did note their preference for some kind of written explanation. The refusal to do so, however, did not alter the outcome in Bank's case.
"To be sure, the better practice, and the norm in this circuit, is for district courts to provide at least some explanation when dismissing a complaint—for the benefit of the parties and for the reviewing court on appeal—and we certainly hope that summary dismissals of this sort will continue to be the exception, not the rule, among judges," the panel said. "Nevertheless, on the record before us, it cannot be said that the district court erred in its dismissal of Bank's claims."
Attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis, which represented Alarm.com, did not immediately comment on the ruling.
READ MORE:
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
© 2024 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 AllJustices Pass on Service Providers' Challenge to NY's Broadband Rate Caps
3 minute readInvestors Sue in New York Over $440M International Crypto Ponzi Scheme
4 minute readBig Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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