FLORIDA IS CALLING: When a Click, a Pause, and a Lead-Gen Chain Ring in TCPA Exposure

Greetings TCPAWorld!

Did someone say Florida is in the house? This one out of the Southern District of Florida has a little bit of everything. A predictive dialer dispute, a vicarious liability chain three defendants deep, an injunctive relief dismissal, and a typo so bad the Court had to address it in a footnote and the body of the opinion. Yes… you read that right! In Weaver v. Urban Solar, LLC et al., No. 24-81292-CIV-SINGHAL, 2025 WL 4235811 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2025), Judge Raag Singhal delivered a mixed ruling on Urban Solar’s Motion to Dismiss, and there’s plenty here for both sides to be aware of.

Here, Plaintiff alleges he received two telemarketing calls in August 2024 on behalf of Urban Solar, a solar panel company, while his number was on the National Do-Not-Call List. According to the Amended Complaint, Urban Solar didn’t make the calls itself.  They allegedly retained Co-Defendant Core Home Security to generate leads within specified parameters, and Core Home Security, in turn, retained Co-Defendant Elhaan Inc. to place the calls. We’re looking at a classic lead-gen chain here. Plaintiff alleges that both calls started with a click, a pause, and a delay before a live person came on the line, which he alleges is the telltale signature of a predictive dialing system. Pay attention to that sentence, it’ll come into play later.

Now here’s where it gets messy. Throughout the entire Amended Complaint, Plaintiff repeatedly referred to “Core Solar” instead of “Core Home Security.” Core Solar isn’t a party to the lawsuit. It’s not even a real entity in this matter. Judge Singhal acknowledged this was more troubling than the other pleading issues and gave Plaintiff a hard deadline to file a Notice of Amendment by Interlineation correcting the typo by March 25, 2025, or the entire Amended Complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. That’s a steep price for possibly a copy-paste error, and it’s a reminder that sloppy pleading can cost you your case even when the substance may be on solid footing.

And the substance appeared solid at least on most fronts. Urban Solar advanced a shotgun pleading argument, asserting that the Amended Complaint grouped all three Defendants together and failed to specify who did what. However, the Court found that, although the Amended Complaint referred collectively to “Defendants” in places, the factual narrative was readily understood: Urban Solar hired Core Home Security, Core Home Security hired Elhaan, and the calls were made at Urban Solar’s direction. That’s an agency theory, and Judge Singhal held it was more than enough to survive dismissal. Additionally, the Court made clear that the precise legal relationship between Urban Solar and the co-Defendants, for instance, whether it’s a formal agency, independent contractor, or something else, is a discovery issue, not a pleading-stage requirement. An interesting note to take away is that it’s a good reminder for defendants who try to front-load discovery disputes into a 12(b)(6) motion.

On the automated dialer question, Urban Solar asserted the Amended Complaint failed to plausibly allege that an automated system was used. Strong argument, but the Court disagreed, and here’s why. Here, Plaintiff described specific physical manifestations that included a click, a pause, and a delay before a human voice, which he alleged are hallmarks of a predictive dialer selecting a number and routing the call to an available agent. Judge Singhal distinguished this from Davis v. Coast Dental Services, LLC, 2022 WL 4217141, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2022), where the plaintiff offered nothing more than a bare, conclusory assertion that an autodialer was used. With this in mind, the Court found that Plaintiff provided the Court with something to work with. For instance, observable characteristics of the call support a reasonable inference. Here’s another important note for practitioners: the fact that Plaintiff couldn’t identify the specific system used was not the end-all at the pleading stage. That’s what discovery is for. See Lopez v. Consumer Safety Technology, LLC, 2024 WL 2111876, at *3 (M.D. Fla. May 10, 2024).

On the flip side, it wasn’t all good news for Plaintiff. Judge Singhal dismissed the injunctive relief claims without prejudice, finding that Plaintiff failed to allege a likelihood of future injury. Future injury is key here. The Amended Complaint alleged two calls on one day in August 2024 with an identical caller ID and nothing more. No continuing pattern, no ongoing campaign, and no basis to reasonably conclude the calls would keep coming. Without a forward-looking threat, there’s no standing for injunctive relief.

So what are the takeaways?

First, if you’re a lead buyer using a multi-layered vendor chain to generate calls, this case serves as another reminder. Here, Urban Solar may not have made the calls itself, but because it allegedly set the parameters and directed the chain of events, it’s now facing TCPA and FTSA liability on an agency theory. The Court made clear that you don’t need a formal agency agreement at the pleading stage. Merely allegations of direction and control are enough. So know your vendors here, folks, and more importantly, know what they’re doing on your behalf! I cannot stress this enough!

Second, the automated dialer analysis here is instructive. A bare assertion that an autodialer was used falls short after Davis. But where a plaintiff goes beyond conclusory allegations and describes specific, observable characteristics of the call, courts may find that sufficient to survive dismissal. It’s the difference between a legal conclusion and a factual allegation, and this case draws a clear line between the two.

Third, (an obvious one) is to proofread. It sounds basic, I know, but a typo that misnames a defendant throughout the entire pleading nearly sank this case. Judge Singhal was generous enough to allow correction by interlineation, but I notice that he made no promises. If you miss the deadline, the whole thing goes away, at least for now. Plaintiff’s counsel dodged one here!

Lastly, injunctive relief in TCPA and FTSA cases continues to be a tough sell. Two calls on a single day, without more, do not establish the kind of ongoing threat courts require for standing to seek injunctive relief.

As always,

Keep it legal, keep it smart, and stay ahead of the game

Talk soon!