BIGGER IN TEXAS: El Paso Federal Court Awards Brandon Callier $530,905.00 Default Judgment in TCPA/TBCC Case

1 Comment

Just picked up this short (and not very sweet) ruling awarding Brandon Callier $530,905.00 in a default judgment against United Fundings.

$530,905.00– for a a repeat litigator with no lawyer.

This is why they do it folks.

This is one of the largest default judgment awards in favor of a pro per I’ve ever seen.

The order does not discuss the underlying facts but breaks down the award as:

“including $120,500.00 under the TCPA, $410,000.00 under the TBCC, and $405.00 in court costs.”

As TCPAWorld readers know the TCPA contains a $500-$1,500 per violation penalty and violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code (TBCC) Chapters 304 and 305 (the “Mini-TCPA”) range as high as $10k with $5k permitted for registration violations!

While I don’t have all the underlying facts here, the fact the awarded TBCC damages dwarf the TCPA component confirm the importance of state law compliance.

Troutman Amin, LLP can help you with both the state and federal compliance piece.

Case is Callier v. United Fundings LLC, 2026 WL 1630445 (W.D. Tex. May 13, 2026)

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. So here’s some added context…

    He claimed 251 calls in total, and says he requested DNC placement on call # 103 – but he failed to account for the 30 day window for violator compliance – during that 30 days there were 117 calls that he claimed treble damages for…while asking for a total of $718,902. If my math is right that’s $117,000 more than allowed…

    Complaint:
    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172807462/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172807462.3.0.pdf

    Default request:
    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172807462/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172807462.11.0.pdf

    He states TBCC 302.101 “…requires sellers…to make telephone solicitations inside the state of Texas or to residents located in the state of Texas.”

    In reality it states “A seller may not make a telephone solicitation from a location in this state OR to a purchaser located in this state…”

    Question for the Czar: Does the OR mean that any caller located in TX calling outward is a violation, while anyone calling into TX is also a violation?

    texas.public.law/statutes/tex._bus._&_com._code_section_302.101

    Reply

Leave a Reply