ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS: Troutman Amin’s Massive Win Last Year Helping Other Defendants Get Out of TCPA Class Actions

we might be giants…

Love being the leader of the pack, and love to see other defendants winning by following in our footsteps.

The Czar is famous, of course, for first-in-the-nation results. It is how I built my reputation.

My most notable win remains Stoops v. Wells Fargo–that established litigants manufacturing claims lack standing to sue– but Stoops is by no means the Czar’s only massive win on a first-ever theory.

For instance last year the Baroness had an absolutely MASSIVE WIN in a case called Bacarri. There it was held–for the first time ever in the nation– that an injury is not “fairly traceable” to a Defendant where contract terms specifically prohibit the calls at issue.

The result? A case that would otherwise have dragged on for months (or years) to the summary judgment stage was tossed out within weeks of being filed. Incredible!

Troutman Amin’s super speed kill shot strategy had worked–and other law firms would take note.

Not long after Bacarri another defendant would win a motion to dismiss applying a similar theory. And, of course, Troutman Amin successfully leveraged the argument to win another one in favor of a different client.

And just last week Smartmatch Insurance jumped on the bandwagon and cited Bacarri for a great win in Howell v. Smartmatch Insurance Agency, LLC  2023 WL 6478881 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 29, 2023).

There it was similarly held that an insurance agency that had bought leads–once again from DMS–would not be responsible for calls made by DMS given the contract terms requiring consent. Now unlike in Bacarri the Court allowed some jurisdictional discovery to confirm that the Defendant’s version of events was accurate–but that still allows only a very narrow discovery set and an expedited proceeding here. So great win.

So did Troutman Amin, LLP really make the TCPAWorld safe for lead buyers who have good contract terms with a single win?


As Bacarri continues to catch on it becomes more powerful and a world where transfer lead buyers and brokers cannot be sued so long as their contract terms may not be far off.

That said–as was the case with my Stoops win–if other law firms improperly raise the argument or fail to support it with sufficient evidence we might see the win start slipping away as courts refuse to follow it in different circumstances.

Be sure to tell your counsel about this strategy and have them CALL ME if they have questions about it.

In the meantime here is a quick video breaking it down a bit:

The Baroness discussing her big win. For more CRITICAL content be sure to follow our INCREDIBLE You Tube Channel! 

Chat soon.




  1. I was at LAX airport the other day and used a restroom that you must have been in before me. The mirror in the restroom had lots of lip stains on it.

  2. BTW, I happen to agree that the Stoops v. Wells Fargo decision was a good decision, and I congratulate Troutman for “the win” — even if the defendant, Wells Fargo Bank NA, has demonstrated itself to be dubious in other ways (i.e., CFBP ordered Wells Fargo to pay a $3.7 Billion civil penalty for illegal banking activities). The whole idea that Mrs. Stoops carried around 3 dozen cell phones just to receive calls so she could sue was outrageous. There are plenty of illegal telemarketing calls ongoing that Mrs. Stoops did not have to stoop to the level that she did. In Stoops v. Wells Fargo, the defendant “deserved to win.” Stoops v. Wells Fargo was a case where Troutman deserves a pat on his back — and he shouldn’t have to dislocate his own shoulder to get one. So, consider this a “pat on the back” to Troutman for the “win” in Stoops v. Wells Fargo… albeit that decision did come out in 2021.

Leave a Reply