“Unifin… does not cite a single case”: TCPA Defendant Blasted By Federal Judge For Failing to Support Position With Relevant Authority (And Its Bad)

Add a comment

Well folks its 2026 and firms are still making bad legal arguments in the TCPAWorld!

What a shocker.

In the latest edition of “terrible outcomes from terrible lawyering in TCPA cases” the court in Ioszpe v. Unifin 2026 WL 27287 (W.D. Ok. Jan 5, 2026) refused to dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint given the complete lack of legal authority supporting the defendant’s position.

To make matters worse the plaintiff didn’t even have a lawyer.

Pause.

How many recent decisions have we seen where litigators without lawyers are beating attorneys from supposedly respectable law firms that supposedly know something about TCPA cases?

Well in Iozpe the court was brutal in denying the defense motion noting a complete failure to address newly-added factual allegations or to present legal authority:

…Unifin cites no authority supporting its position and does not engage with Grice or the split of authority Grice identifies. Unifin also does not cite a single case in support of its argument, nor does it analyze Grice or the split of authority referenced by that court. 3 See Rapid Transit Lines, Inc. v. Wichita Developers, Inc., 435 F.2d 850, 852 (10th Cir. 1970) (noting a party’s failure to cite to any relevant authority  “suggests that there is no authority to sustain its position or that it expects the court to do its research”)… Unifin offers no authority or meaningful analysis addressing whether these allegations are sufficient to establish minimum contacts. 4 The Court declines to do that work for Unifin.

Ouch.

That last line is particularly brutal. It means the court is fed up and feels the defense wasted its time. That leads to a further brutal conclusion to the order:

In sum, Unifin does not address the allegations in the Amended Complaint, nor does it cite relevant authority to support its legal arguments. Having reviewed the new allegations, the Court finds no basis to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(2) or 12(b)(3).

My goodness.

Just think about this for a second. A federal judge literally found the defense lawyers did not “address” the allegations of the complaint they were seeking to dismiss and also did not cite relevant authority.

Just wild. A complete waste of the client’s money and the court’s time.

What are these guys thinking?

Unifin is lucky plaintiff doesn’t have a lawyer– if she did you could expect a motion for sanctions related to the frivolous filing here.

Bottom line, bad lawyering leads to bad outcomes.

Don’t hire bad lawyers.

Troutman Amin, LLP has been called the “Best TCPA law firm” in the nation. We take TCPA defense seriously and know precisely what moves to make and what moves to avoid. No bad lawyers here.

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.

Leave a Reply