Simpson v. J.G. Wentworth Co.

Simpson v. J.G. Wentworth Co.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

MARSTON, J.

Plaintiff Douglas Simpson brings this putative class action against Defendant The J.G. Wentworth Company under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act ("FTSA"). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff now moves to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, citing Defendant's recent discovery responses, which identified the Florida-based vendor that placed the call at issue on Defendant's behalf. (Doc. No. 19 at 4.) Defendant opposes the motion. (Doc. No. [*2]  21.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is granted, and this matter is transferred to the Middle District of Florida.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff claims that on July 13, 2022, he received a pre-recorded telemarketing call on his cell phone. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 22, 26.) That call was eventually transferred to an employee for Defendant, who asked about Plaintiff's financial condition and whether he wished to borrow money. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-36.) Plaintiff, who lives in Florida, argues that this call violated the TCPA and FTSA, which prohibit individuals and companies from making telemarketing calls using automated systems or prerecorded messages without first receiving the recipient's prior express written consent. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1); Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a).

Plaintiff filed his putative, class action Complaint in this Court on July 25, 2022. (Doc. No. 1.) On August 9, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer and denied making the call at issue, alleging that "Plaintiff reached out to a third-party regarding interest in its services and, given Plaintiff's request to that third-party, Plaintiff was ultimately routed to [Defendant]." (Doc. No. 10 at ¶¶ 4, 21, 31. ) Defendant did not identify the alleged third party. Likewise, [*3]  in the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report, Defendant again states that it "did not make the calls at issue," and that it "works with multiple vendors, who direct leads to multiple entities," including Defendant. (Joint 26(f) Report at 2.) "Moreover, these vendors themselves work with multiple sub-vendors who generate leads." (Id.) Again, Defendant did not identify the third-party vendor.

The Court held a preliminary pretrial conference with counsel for the parties on October 6, 2022 and issued a scheduling order a few days later. (See Doc. No. 15.) That Order set a deadline of February 1, 2023 for the parties to amend the pleadings and add parties; a deadline of March 1, 2023 for Plaintiff to move for class certification; and a discovery deadline of June 2, 2023. (See id. at ¶¶ 2-7.) In November 2022, the Court approved the parties' protective order and confidentiality agreement for discovery materials, but otherwise, the Court has given little oversight this case.

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