$150k DEFAULT JUDGMENT STANDS: T-Mobile Cannot Evade Expensive TCPA Loss Due to a Simple Procedure Failure

1 Comment

The law is so arcane.

A jungle of ferns and vines to snag and ensnare.

Only the truly wary can survive long. It takes a survivalist instinct.

I love it here.

As one federal judge said of me once after I failed to fall into various trap that had been set out for me: “You are a very careful lawyer Mr. Troutman.”

Indeed, I am.

And for many a good reason.

He’s one.

In T-Mobile v. Persichetti  2025 WL 2416172 (GA App. Aug. 21, 2025) a Georgia appeals court refused to set aside a $150k default judgment against T-Mobile and it came down to a simple procedural error by T-Mobile’s attorneys.

In the case below T-Mobile had failed to respond to a set of RFAs and the responses– admitting 100 calls at issue– were taken as conceded.

That was a mistake to be sure but it wasn’t the mistake.

T-Mobile moved to set aside the admission and when the court denied the ruling orally T-Mobile’s attorneys did not request the ruling be made in writing.

Under appellate procedural rules in many jurisdictions– including in Georgia–a ruling that is not reduced to writing cannot be appealed.

So when T-Mobile appealed a resulting $150k judgment that relied on the RFA admissions it was stuck– the appellate court could not set consider the lower court’s failure to permit withdrawal of the admissions. So it lost.

All because of a simple failure to request the ruling be reduced to writing.

In fairness to T-Mobile’s counsel it would take a pretty “careful” attorney to detect and resolve the issue in real time.

Make sure you hire such an attorney. 🙂

Also quick reminder– AWESOME FREE webinar coming up Monday. Be sure to register!

ONE MORE WEBINAR!: Crowd Pleasing Discussion On Political Robocalls and Non-Profit Fundraising Set for Next Week!

Chat soon.

 

Discover more from TCPAWorld

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories:

Published by Eric "Czar" Troutman

The Czar of TCPAWorld Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems. Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous analysis and extraordinary responsiveness. Eric and his team feel equally at home litigating multibillion dollar telecommunications class actions in federal court as they do developing and executing national litigation strategies for institutions facing an onslaught of individual TCPA matters. They thrive in each of these roles – delivering consistently excellent results – while never losing sight of the client experience. While many firms now tout TCPA expertise, Eric has been there from the beginning. He built one of the country’s first TCPA-only defense teams and began serving as national TCPA counsel for his clients nearly a decade ago. This perspective allows him to swiftly develop the right litigation strategies for dealing with recurring problems, without wasting time on tactics that are bound to fail. Eric’s rich historical perspective and encyclopedic knowledge of the TCPA landscape also make him an invaluable resource to institutional compliance teams struggling to comply with the shifting regulatory landscape. No task is too small – or too big. Indeed, Eric and his team have helped build TCPA-compliant systems and processes for some of the largest and most complex corporate entities in the country. He commonly works with in-house compliance counsel to build and implement enterprise and business-line specific TCPA solutions, performs TCPA audits and drafts and reviews proposed TCPA policies and procedures. He and his team also have the technical expertise necessary to assist call centers seeking to develop TCPA-resistant call path architecture or to modify existing telephony and software integration to better insulate from potential TCPA exposure. Eric has built a reputation for thought leadership. An avid blogger and speaker, he has been at the forefront of the industry’s effort to push for clarity and a return to sanity for the TCPA for years. He was selected to advocate for the financial services industry on important TCPA issues before the Federal Communications Commission and co-authored the nation’s only comprehensive practice guide on TCPA defense. In his spare time, Eric leads defense teams representing banks and other financial services companies in consumer finance litigation matters. He has experience representing clients in UCC, TILA, RESPA FCRA, CCRA, CLRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA and FCCPA claims, as well as in fraud and bank operations issues.

1 Comment

  1. Gee, Czar, YOU are slipping. You forgot to mention that T-Mobile was represented by #BigLaw. So, as you would usually say, the result was predictable. But, given that T-Mobile has a net worth of around $290 Billion, and assuming that T-Mobile earns 1 percent annual interest on their net worth, $150,000 represents 9/10ths of one second worth of bank interest on that net worth. So, in this instance, it appears, whilst T-Mobile had #BigLaw for counsel, the loss to T-Mobile is de minimis.

    Reply

Leave a Reply