Jesse Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “the district court acted within its discretion when it ruled 8 that [plaintiff] met the commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of [Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure] 23(a
• stating that a district court “did not abuse its discretion by granting provisional class certification” in an order wherein it also granted a preliminary injunction
• finding that the issue of individual consent did not preclude class certification when defendant “did not show a single instance where express consent was given before the call was placed.”
• certifying class where there was no evidence that named plaintiff or putative class members had consented to receiving communication
• setting forth elements of a TCPA claim, including that defendant, must have used “an automatic telephone dialing system”
• setting forth elements of a TCPA claim, including that defendant must have used “an automatic telephone dialing system”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).