A while back I wrote about a case where the Court had placed the burden on the Defendant to disprove the use of an ATDS, when the Plaintiff should have been required to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a genuine question on the subject.
Notably, the case was decided in Indiana–which is Gadelhak territory–so the case law at the time of the ruling was already consistent with the Supreme Court’s later ruling in Facebook.
Nonetheless, the Defendant leveraged Facebook–which, again, did not actually change the law in the jurisdiction–to seek reconsideration of the Court’s earlier denial of judgment.
The motion for reconsideration was supported by a declaration from the dialer platform–Live Vox–attesting that the platform does not use a RoSNG to generate telephone numbers to be dialed.
The Plaintiff apparently offered no answer to this declaration, so the Court changed its mind and granted reconsideration. In light of Facebook and the uncontroverted dialer declaration the Court determined the Defendant was entitled to judgment.
The case doesn’t really move the needle much in terms of TCPA jurisprudence, but its an interesting little tale that deserved to be told. And so it has been.
The case is Friend v. Taylor Law,, CAUSE NO.: 4:17-CV-29-JVB-JPK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207677 (N.D. Ind. October 27, 2021).