Well that was quick. And brief. And entirely expected.
As we reported just a few days ago, the Plaintiff in the big Gadelhak TCPA appeal took a crack at seeking a re-hearing en banc after losing on the all important definition of ATDS.
An en banc review is when you ask the same appellate court that just voted against you to compile all of its judges to re-consider your case–its always a long shot, and the Gadelhak bid was a particularly unlikely one given how well and thoroughly considered the original appellate ruling was. (Not to mention that it is entirely on all fours with the Eleventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Glasser, which also resulted in a denied en banc re-hearing request.)
For the curious the content of the order is:
Plaintiff‐Appellant filed a petition for rehearing en banc on March 4, 2020. No
judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en
banc, and all of the judges on the panel have voted to deny rehearing.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
And that’s the end of that.
As a result, the statutory definition of ATDS–requiring random or sequential number generation–is the law of the land within the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal. That includes the heavily TCPA trafficked N.D. Ill.
Order here: Ruling Denying En Banc Review
Unrelated, the entire state of California is now under a “stay home” order.