TCPA NIGHTMARE: Court Allows Guy Who Isn’t in the Class to Sue Dabella for A Claim That Doesn’t Exist– and That’s How Its Going for #BigLaw Right Now

Add a comment

Imagine being sued in a TCPA class action on a claim that doesn’t exist by a guy that isn’t in the class– and losing.

That just happened to Dabella Exteriors, and I want to feel bad for them but since they were using #BigLaw they really should have seen it coming.

In Weingrad v. Dabella Exteriors 2026 WL 496609 (D. Or. Feb. 23, 2026) the court found repeat litigator Leon Weingad could pursue his Caller ID claim against Dabella, who had allegedly called and texted him without permission– once even after the lawsuit was filed!

Not good.

Weingrad sued on a few theories, among them that Dabella had failed to honor the Caller ID requirements in connection with telemarketing calls.

Now TCPAWorld readers may recall courts previously held there was no private right of action related to caller ID displays by telemarketers under § 64.1601(e).

Then Selectquote hired a #biglaw firm to fight this issue against Dobronski (a guy with no lawyer)… and lost.

Since then EVERY SINGLE TIME a #biglaw firm has tried to point out there is no private right of action under § 64.1601(e)– and in my view, there isn’t– they have LOST.

Weingrad is the latest example.

Dabella moved to dismiss that portion of the case on the grounds there is no private right of action but the court disagreed:

The FCC promulgated § 64.1601(e) through its authority under 47 U.S.C. § 277(c). Mr. Weingrad, therefore, may avail himself
of the express private right of action in that section to sue for violations of § 64.1601(e). See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). The Court
denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action.

So Dabella is being sued on a claim that doesn’t even exist.

Bad. Bad. Bad.

It gets worse.

The Court then allows Weingrad to represent a class of people he isn’t even a part of– this clearly shouldn’t happen. I just can’t imagine why else the court would allow this to occur.

Here’s what happened.

The class is defined as:

[a]ll persons within the United States to whom: (1) Defendant (or a third-party acting on behalf of
Defendant) sent (2) two or more telemarketing calls or text messages in a 12-month period, (3) who were
not current customers of the Defendant at the time of the calls, (4) who had previously asked for the calls
to stop and (5) within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.

But Plaintiff did not ask for calls to stop and did not receive two or more calls after the request– instead Plaintiff received one call after he filed a lawsuit (he never actually asked for calls to stop.)

This really should have been a no-brainer for the court–I’m actually a little surprised Plaintiff’s counsel didn’t try to amend to avoid the motion– but the court refused to strike the class oddly suggesting Plaintiff could still sue on behalf of a defined class he was never a part of (despite binding law to the opposite.)

So Dabella really got the double whammy here. Not good.

Lots of AVOIDABLE rulings out there recently– make sure you (and your counsel if it isn’t Troutman Amin, LLP) have a copy of the 2026 TCPA Annual Review, presented by Contact Center Compliance. Totally FREE! Just Ask!

FIRST DAY OF CZARMAS 2026: THE 2026 TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP TCPA ANNUAL REVIEW, Presented By Contact Center Compliance is now FREE for the Asking!!!!!!!!!!!

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