Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Morris v. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division

November 8, 2016, Decided; November 9, 2016, Filed

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-00638-ALM-CAN

Opinion

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court are Defendant UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company's ("Defendant" or "UHC") Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkts. 46-51], Plaintiff's Responses [sic] to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 53], Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 57], and Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence [Dkt. 58]. Having considered the relevant pleadings, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkts. 46-51] be GRANTED and Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence [Dkt. 58] be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

I. Procedural History

On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff George Morris ("Plaintiff") commenced the instant action by filing his Petition in the Collin County Justice Court Precinct 3-1, Collin County, Texas, Cause [*2]  Number 31-SC-15-00131 [Dkt. 1 at 1]. On September 18, 2015, Defendant removed this suit to the Eastern District of Texas [Dkt. 1]. Following removal, on November 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed his 2nd [sic] Amended Complaint [Dkt. 14], and, on January 22, 2016, his 3rd [sic] Amended Complaint [Dkt. 26].1 Therein, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendant for various violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (2012) ("TCPA") [Dkt. 26]. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the TCPA by contacting him on his telephone number, which is registered on the federal do-not-call list [Dkt. 26 at 1]. Plaintiff asserts two types of TCPA claims against UHC: (1) use of an artificial or prerecorded voice, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B) ("ATDS Violations"); and (2) making telephone calls to a number on the national do not call list, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) ("DNCL Violations"). On July 27, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 46]. Plaintiff responded [Dkt. 53], and Defendant filed a Reply [Dkt. 57], as well as a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence [Dkt. 58]. The Motion for Summary Judgment is now ripe for the Court's consideration.

II. Undisputed Facts

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168288 *

GEORGE MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Adopted by, Summary judgment granted by, Motion granted by, in part, Motion denied by, in part, Dismissed by Morris v. Unitedhealthcare Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168118 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 6, 2016)

CORE TERMS

summary judgment, prerecorded, telephone number, artificial, telephone, telephone solicitation, message, violations, caller id, calls made, caller, residential, do-not-call, proffered, phone, solicitations, deposition, alleges, district court, RECOMMENDATION, subscribers, concrete, genuine, summary judgment motion, business reply card, make a call, robocallers, assertions, nonmovant, privacy