AVOID AVOID AVOID First Union Lending. They are very misleading in their marketing and they broker loans to actual lenders which cost you more. First I will address their misleading website and claims. They state they are a lender and even on their website and email signatures show a logo that states First Union Lending – Licensed Lender.
In the center of this logo it shows a so called license number. This is actually how lenders who have a license show their license number. However after investigating this was a Florida Secretary of State LLC document number, VERY MISLEADING. Second issue.
Even with excellent credit and time in business. They shotgun your file to a ton of actual lenders. This in turn lowers your credit score and doesn’t look good to other financial institutions. They tried to state it was soft pulls. However my credit report says different.
My speculation is they do this to see who is going to give them the greatest yield spread, points/monies paid to them. Not the best deal of their clients. Third Issue. We got a loan approved. Went in to sign loan documents at First Union Lending Orlando Florida. Was told we would get a copy of these documents.
After signing got to talking about other things with their so called underwriter and left their office without getting them. Called several times to ask for a copy and never got them. On the third call asking for those loan documents. I was told they couldn’t get them. They said that their lender would release them to us once the loan funded.
This is when my red flags started going up. I then contacted the State of Florida Department of Financial Regulations. The investigator I spoke with seems concerned enough he ask us to submit a complaint and to report this to the State Attorney General of Florida’s office. So after speaking with our attorney.
He has advised filing complaints with the two agencies above and also the Federal Trade Commission against First Union Lending. In closing we used this company because their advertising stated they were a lender and they had a local office in Orlando Florida. Too many red flags out there related to using First Union Lending services.
Misleading marketing claiming to be the lender, doesn’t seem to follow standard procedures when it comes to supplying loan documentation and my guess is using that Florida LLC document number to try and represent an actual lenders license number in their website graphics, email signatures and other online advertising . I even have to really suspect their online reviews are not real. There are companies out there you can hire to leave shill reviews. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!
AVOID AVOID AVOID First Union Lending. They are very misleading in their marketing and they broker loans to actual lenders which cost you more. First I will address their misleading website and claims. They state they are a lender and even on their website and email signatures show a logo that states First Union Lending – Licensed Lender.
In the center of this logo it shows a so called license number. This is actually how lenders who have a license show their license number. However after investigating this was a Florida Secretary of State LLC document number, VERY MISLEADING. Second issue.
Even with excellent credit and time in business. They shotgun your file to a ton of actual lenders. This in turn lowers your credit score and doesn’t look good to other financial institutions. They tried to state it was soft pulls. However my credit report says different.
My speculation is they do this to see who is going to give them the greatest yield spread, points/monies paid to them. Not the best deal of their clients. Third Issue. We got a loan approved. Went in to sign loan documents at First Union Lending Orlando Florida. Was told we would get a copy of these documents.
After signing got to talking about other things with their so called underwriter and left their office without getting them. Called several times to ask for a copy and never got them. On the third call asking for those loan documents. I was told they couldn’t get them. They said that their lender would release them to us once the loan funded.
This is when my red flags started going up. I then contacted the State of Florida Department of Financial Regulations. The investigator I spoke with seems concerned enough he ask us to submit a complaint and to report this to the State Attorney General of Florida’s office. So after speaking with our attorney.
He has advised filing complaints with the two agencies above and also the Federal Trade Commission against First Union Lending. In closing we used this company because their advertising stated they were a lender and they had a local office in Orlando Florida. Too many red flags out there related to using First Union Lending services.
Misleading marketing claiming to be the lender, doesn’t seem to follow standard procedures when it comes to supplying loan documentation and my guess is using that Florida LLC document number to try and represent an actual lenders license number in their website graphics, email signatures and other online advertising . I even have to really suspect their online reviews are not real. There are companies out there you can hire to leave shill reviews. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!
I was illegally called by First Union Lending, LLC from Florida. 47 USC section 501 states that it is a federal crime to violate 47 USC 227(b)(1)(A) because it is "unlawful" to call a cellular phone on the DNC to sell whatever you are selling. Dennis Arroyo (aka dennis cage) did exactly that.
Telemarketing to cell phones on the DNC registry and threats by owner Dennis Arroyo I was actually threatened by Dennis who is one of the owners at First Union Lending LLC in Florida. I my opinion, this place is horrible. This company is on the verge of going out of business according to the owners. I was illegally telemarketed several times by First Union Lending LLC from Florida. It is a violation of 47 USC section 227 to cal my cell phone. After I complained, Dennis actually purchased a web domain with my name. www.beat......com with my first and last name. He threatened to have me arrested for complaining.
All of this is verifiable separately. I have written emails from Dennis to prove this as well. I am willing to speak to the media about these abusive racketeers. I just own a phone.
I never had my right to peace and quite taken away. No matter who I am, I still have the right to be left alone. I have the right to not be threatened. I just own a phone. I put my number on the Do Not Call Registry. My number is not a business phone and it is not on the internet or on any business web page.
Your Desired Resolution:
Stop threatening me. Stop engaging in felony extortion by stating that you are going to harm me if I make a complaint about your illegal telemarketing. Send me your do not call policy. Stop hiring third world country lead sources to buy lists of numbers from. Make America great again by obeying the law.
Dennis stated to me in writing that he can contacted law enforment, his buddy LT in Florida as well as all the other telemarketers out there, and if I make this complaint, he is going to have me arrested in multiple states. That threat alone by Dennis is extortion under California penal codes 518-523.
In 2014, the 9th Circuit in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co. (9th Cir. 2014) 768 F.3d 871, 878, regarding TCPA vicarious liability held:
“[t]his interpretation is consistent with that of the statute's implementing agency, which has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of vicarious liability under the TCPA. The Federal Communications Commission is expressly imbued with authority to "prescribe regulations to implement the requirements" of the TCPA. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2). As early as 1995, the FCC stated that "[c]alls placed by an agent of the telemarketer are treated as if the telemarketer itself placed the call." In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, 10 FCC Rcd. 12391, 12397 (1995).
More recently, the FCC has clarified that vicarious liability is imposed "under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers." In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574, 6574 (2013). Because Congress has not spoken directly to this issue and because the FCC's interpretation was included in a fully adjudicated declaratory ruling, the interpretation must be afforded Chevron deference. Metrophones Telecomm., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc., 423 F.3d 1056, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. a*s'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980-85, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 162 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2005)) (other citations omitted), aff'd, 550 U.S. 45, 127 S. Ct. 1513, 167 L. Ed. 2d 422 (2007)” See alsoRestatement (Third) of Agency (2006) §§ 2.01, 2.03, 4.01 (explaining that agency may be established by express authorization, implicit authorization, or ratification)."Lawyer Ethics
As Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit recently explained in a TCPA case regarding calls to a non-debtor similar to this one:
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act...is well known for
its provisions limiting junk-fax transmissions. A less-litigated
part of the Act curtails the use of automated dialers and
prerecorded messages to cell phones, whose subscribers often
are billed by the minute as soon as the call is answered--and
routing a call to voicemail counts as answering the call. An
automated call to a landline phone can be an annoyance; an
automated call to a cell phone adds expense to annoyance.
Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012).Craig v. County of Los Angeles (1990)
The FCC also recognized that “wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used.” In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014, 14115 ¶ 165 (2003).
Standing is proper under Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America because Plaintiff’s claims state:
A valid injury in fact;
which is traceable to the conduct of Defendants;
and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. See, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S.____(2016) at 6, and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 at 560. In order to meet the standard laid out in Spokeo and Lujan, Plaintiffs must clearly allege facts demonstrating all three prongs above.
The “Injury in Fact” Prong.
Plaintiff’s injury, in fact, must be both “concrete” and “particularized” in order to satisfy the requirements of Article III of the Constitution, as laid out in Spokeo (Id.). For an injury to be “concrete,” it must be a de facto injury, meaning that it actually exists. In the present case, Plaintiff was called on his cellular phone at least five (5) times by Defendants. In fact, Plaintiff expressly informed Defendants to cease and desist from all future telemarketing on the very first call. Such calls are a nuisance, an invasion of privacy, and an expense to Plaintiff in multiple ways. Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012). Defendant’s invasion of Plaintiff’s right to privacy is further exacerbated by the fact that Plaintiff’s phone number, at all times relevant to this litigation, was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry ( hereinafter, “DNC Registry”). As well, Plaintiff had no prior business relationship with Defendants prior to receiving the seriously harassing and annoying calls as well as the extortionate threats by Prosperify. All of Plaintiff’s injuries are concrete and de facto. For an injury to be “particularized” means that the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) at 14. In the instant case, it was Plaintiff’s phone that was called and it was Plaintiff himself who answered the calls. It was Plaintiff’s personal privacy and peace that was invaded by Defendant’s persistent phone calls using an ATDS and a pre-recoded message, despite Plaintiff having no prior business relationship with Defendants and Plaintiff’s attempt to avoid the damage by registering his number on the DNC Registry. Finally, Plaintiff alone is responsible to pay the bill on his cellular phone, his home phone and to pay the bill for his electric utility company kilowatt-hour power usage. All of these injuries are particularized and specific to Plaintiff and will be the same injuries suffered by Plaintiff.
The “Traceable to the Conduct of Defendants” Prong
The second prong required to establish standing at the pleadings phase is that Plaintiff must allege facts to show that his injury is traceable to the conduct of Defendants. In the instant case, this prong is met by the fact that the calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone and home phone (land line) were placed either by Defendants directly, or by Defendants’ agent at the direction of Defendants.
The “Injury is Likely to be Redressed by a Favorable Judicial Opinion” Prong
The third prong to establish standing at the pleadings phase requires Plaintiff to allege facts to show that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion. In the present case, Plaintiff’s Prayers for Relief include a request for damages for each call made by Defendants, as authorized by statute in 47 U.S.C. § 227. The statutory damages were set by Congress and specifically redress the financial damages suffered by Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Prayers for Relief request injunctive relief to restrain Defendants from the alleged abusive practices in the future. The award of monetary damages and the order for injunctive relief redress the injuries of the past and prevent further injury in the future. Because all standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution have been met, as laid out in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), Plaintiff has standing to sue Defendants on the stated claims.
“…[C]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have held that "allegations of nuisance and invasions of privacy in TCPA actions are concrete" injuries that establish standing. See Mbazomo v. ETourandtravel, Inc., 16-CV-2229-SB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170186, 2016 WL 7165693, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016); Cabiness v. Educ. Fin. Sols., LLC, 16-CV-1109-JST, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142005, 2016 WL 5791411, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016); Juarez v. Citibank, N.A., No. 16-CV-1984-WHO, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118483, 2016 WL 4547914, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016); Hewlett v. Consolidated World Travel, Inc., 16-713 WBS AC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112553, 2016 WL 4466536, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016); Cour v. Life360, Inc., 16-CV-00805-TEH, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98945, 2016 WL 4039279, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2016); Booth v. Appstack, Inc., No. 13-1553JLR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68886, 2016 WL 3030256, at *7 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2016). In Mbazamo, the court held that a violation of the TCPA represents a concrete injury because "[t]he history of sustaining claims against both unwelcome intrusion into a plaintiff's seclusion and unceasing debt-collector harassment are squarely 'harm[s] that [have] traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit.'" Mbazomo, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170186, 2016 WL 7165693, at *2 (quoting Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549-50). The court declined to follow Romero, explaining that Romero "improperly erodes the pleading standard set under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) . . . . A plaintiff [need only] plausibly tie the alleged acts of the defendant to the alleged harms suffered." Id.
First Union Lending, LLC. Reviews
AVOID AVOID AVOID First Union Lending. They are very misleading in their marketing and they broker loans to actual lenders which cost you more. First I will address their misleading website and claims. They state they are a lender and even on their website and email signatures show a logo that states First Union Lending – Licensed Lender.
In the center of this logo it shows a so called license number. This is actually how lenders who have a license show their license number. However after investigating this was a Florida Secretary of State LLC document number, VERY MISLEADING. Second issue.
Even with excellent credit and time in business. They shotgun your file to a ton of actual lenders. This in turn lowers your credit score and doesn’t look good to other financial institutions. They tried to state it was soft pulls. However my credit report says different.
My speculation is they do this to see who is going to give them the greatest yield spread, points/monies paid to them. Not the best deal of their clients. Third Issue. We got a loan approved. Went in to sign loan documents at First Union Lending Orlando Florida. Was told we would get a copy of these documents.
After signing got to talking about other things with their so called underwriter and left their office without getting them. Called several times to ask for a copy and never got them. On the third call asking for those loan documents. I was told they couldn’t get them. They said that their lender would release them to us once the loan funded.
This is when my red flags started going up. I then contacted the State of Florida Department of Financial Regulations. The investigator I spoke with seems concerned enough he ask us to submit a complaint and to report this to the State Attorney General of Florida’s office. So after speaking with our attorney.
He has advised filing complaints with the two agencies above and also the Federal Trade Commission against First Union Lending. In closing we used this company because their advertising stated they were a lender and they had a local office in Orlando Florida. Too many red flags out there related to using First Union Lending services.
Misleading marketing claiming to be the lender, doesn’t seem to follow standard procedures when it comes to supplying loan documentation and my guess is using that Florida LLC document number to try and represent an actual lenders license number in their website graphics, email signatures and other online advertising . I even have to really suspect their online reviews are not real. There are companies out there you can hire to leave shill reviews. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!
AVOID AVOID AVOID First Union Lending. They are very misleading in their marketing and they broker loans to actual lenders which cost you more. First I will address their misleading website and claims. They state they are a lender and even on their website and email signatures show a logo that states First Union Lending – Licensed Lender.
In the center of this logo it shows a so called license number. This is actually how lenders who have a license show their license number. However after investigating this was a Florida Secretary of State LLC document number, VERY MISLEADING. Second issue.
Even with excellent credit and time in business. They shotgun your file to a ton of actual lenders. This in turn lowers your credit score and doesn’t look good to other financial institutions. They tried to state it was soft pulls. However my credit report says different.
My speculation is they do this to see who is going to give them the greatest yield spread, points/monies paid to them. Not the best deal of their clients. Third Issue. We got a loan approved. Went in to sign loan documents at First Union Lending Orlando Florida. Was told we would get a copy of these documents.
After signing got to talking about other things with their so called underwriter and left their office without getting them. Called several times to ask for a copy and never got them. On the third call asking for those loan documents. I was told they couldn’t get them. They said that their lender would release them to us once the loan funded.
This is when my red flags started going up. I then contacted the State of Florida Department of Financial Regulations. The investigator I spoke with seems concerned enough he ask us to submit a complaint and to report this to the State Attorney General of Florida’s office. So after speaking with our attorney.
He has advised filing complaints with the two agencies above and also the Federal Trade Commission against First Union Lending. In closing we used this company because their advertising stated they were a lender and they had a local office in Orlando Florida. Too many red flags out there related to using First Union Lending services.
Misleading marketing claiming to be the lender, doesn’t seem to follow standard procedures when it comes to supplying loan documentation and my guess is using that Florida LLC document number to try and represent an actual lenders license number in their website graphics, email signatures and other online advertising . I even have to really suspect their online reviews are not real. There are companies out there you can hire to leave shill reviews. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!
I was illegally called by First Union Lending, LLC from Florida. 47 USC section 501 states that it is a federal crime to violate 47 USC 227(b)(1)(A) because it is "unlawful" to call a cellular phone on the DNC to sell whatever you are selling. Dennis Arroyo (aka dennis cage) did exactly that.
Telemarketing to cell phones on the DNC registry and threats by owner Dennis Arroyo I was actually threatened by Dennis who is one of the owners at First Union Lending LLC in Florida. I my opinion, this place is horrible. This company is on the verge of going out of business according to the owners. I was illegally telemarketed several times by First Union Lending LLC from Florida. It is a violation of 47 USC section 227 to cal my cell phone. After I complained, Dennis actually purchased a web domain with my name. www.beat......com with my first and last name. He threatened to have me arrested for complaining.
All of this is verifiable separately. I have written emails from Dennis to prove this as well. I am willing to speak to the media about these abusive racketeers. I just own a phone.
I never had my right to peace and quite taken away. No matter who I am, I still have the right to be left alone. I have the right to not be threatened. I just own a phone. I put my number on the Do Not Call Registry. My number is not a business phone and it is not on the internet or on any business web page.
Your Desired Resolution:
Stop threatening me. Stop engaging in felony extortion by stating that you are going to harm me if I make a complaint about your illegal telemarketing. Send me your do not call policy. Stop hiring third world country lead sources to buy lists of numbers from. Make America great again by obeying the law.
Dennis stated to me in writing that he can contacted law enforment, his buddy LT in Florida as well as all the other telemarketers out there, and if I make this complaint, he is going to have me arrested in multiple states. That threat alone by Dennis is extortion under California penal codes 518-523.
In 2014, the 9th Circuit in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co. (9th Cir. 2014) 768 F.3d 871, 878, regarding TCPA vicarious liability held:
“[t]his interpretation is consistent with that of the statute's implementing agency, which has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of vicarious liability under the TCPA. The Federal Communications Commission is expressly imbued with authority to "prescribe regulations to implement the requirements" of the TCPA. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2). As early as 1995, the FCC stated that "[c]alls placed by an agent of the telemarketer are treated as if the telemarketer itself placed the call." In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, 10 FCC Rcd. 12391, 12397 (1995).
More recently, the FCC has clarified that vicarious liability is imposed "under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers." In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574, 6574 (2013). Because Congress has not spoken directly to this issue and because the FCC's interpretation was included in a fully adjudicated declaratory ruling, the interpretation must be afforded Chevron deference. Metrophones Telecomm., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc., 423 F.3d 1056, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. a*s'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980-85, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 162 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2005)) (other citations omitted), aff'd, 550 U.S. 45, 127 S. Ct. 1513, 167 L. Ed. 2d 422 (2007)” See alsoRestatement (Third) of Agency (2006) §§ 2.01, 2.03, 4.01 (explaining that agency may be established by express authorization, implicit authorization, or ratification)."Lawyer Ethics
As Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit recently explained in a TCPA case regarding calls to a non-debtor similar to this one:
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act...is well known for
its provisions limiting junk-fax transmissions. A less-litigated
part of the Act curtails the use of automated dialers and
prerecorded messages to cell phones, whose subscribers often
are billed by the minute as soon as the call is answered--and
routing a call to voicemail counts as answering the call. An
automated call to a landline phone can be an annoyance; an
automated call to a cell phone adds expense to annoyance.
Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012).Craig v. County of Los Angeles (1990)
The FCC also recognized that “wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used.” In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014, 14115 ¶ 165 (2003).
Standing is proper under Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America because Plaintiff’s claims state:
A valid injury in fact;
which is traceable to the conduct of Defendants;
and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. See, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S.____(2016) at 6, and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 at 560. In order to meet the standard laid out in Spokeo and Lujan, Plaintiffs must clearly allege facts demonstrating all three prongs above.
The “Injury in Fact” Prong.
Plaintiff’s injury, in fact, must be both “concrete” and “particularized” in order to satisfy the requirements of Article III of the Constitution, as laid out in Spokeo (Id.). For an injury to be “concrete,” it must be a de facto injury, meaning that it actually exists. In the present case, Plaintiff was called on his cellular phone at least five (5) times by Defendants. In fact, Plaintiff expressly informed Defendants to cease and desist from all future telemarketing on the very first call. Such calls are a nuisance, an invasion of privacy, and an expense to Plaintiff in multiple ways. Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012). Defendant’s invasion of Plaintiff’s right to privacy is further exacerbated by the fact that Plaintiff’s phone number, at all times relevant to this litigation, was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry ( hereinafter, “DNC Registry”). As well, Plaintiff had no prior business relationship with Defendants prior to receiving the seriously harassing and annoying calls as well as the extortionate threats by Prosperify. All of Plaintiff’s injuries are concrete and de facto. For an injury to be “particularized” means that the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) at 14. In the instant case, it was Plaintiff’s phone that was called and it was Plaintiff himself who answered the calls. It was Plaintiff’s personal privacy and peace that was invaded by Defendant’s persistent phone calls using an ATDS and a pre-recoded message, despite Plaintiff having no prior business relationship with Defendants and Plaintiff’s attempt to avoid the damage by registering his number on the DNC Registry. Finally, Plaintiff alone is responsible to pay the bill on his cellular phone, his home phone and to pay the bill for his electric utility company kilowatt-hour power usage. All of these injuries are particularized and specific to Plaintiff and will be the same injuries suffered by Plaintiff.
The “Traceable to the Conduct of Defendants” Prong
The second prong required to establish standing at the pleadings phase is that Plaintiff must allege facts to show that his injury is traceable to the conduct of Defendants. In the instant case, this prong is met by the fact that the calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone and home phone (land line) were placed either by Defendants directly, or by Defendants’ agent at the direction of Defendants.
The “Injury is Likely to be Redressed by a Favorable Judicial Opinion” Prong
The third prong to establish standing at the pleadings phase requires Plaintiff to allege facts to show that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion. In the present case, Plaintiff’s Prayers for Relief include a request for damages for each call made by Defendants, as authorized by statute in 47 U.S.C. § 227. The statutory damages were set by Congress and specifically redress the financial damages suffered by Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Prayers for Relief request injunctive relief to restrain Defendants from the alleged abusive practices in the future. The award of monetary damages and the order for injunctive relief redress the injuries of the past and prevent further injury in the future. Because all standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution have been met, as laid out in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), Plaintiff has standing to sue Defendants on the stated claims.
“…[C]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have held that "allegations of nuisance and invasions of privacy in TCPA actions are concrete" injuries that establish standing. See Mbazomo v. ETourandtravel, Inc., 16-CV-2229-SB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170186, 2016 WL 7165693, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016); Cabiness v. Educ. Fin. Sols., LLC, 16-CV-1109-JST, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142005, 2016 WL 5791411, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016); Juarez v. Citibank, N.A., No. 16-CV-1984-WHO, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118483, 2016 WL 4547914, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016); Hewlett v. Consolidated World Travel, Inc., 16-713 WBS AC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112553, 2016 WL 4466536, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016); Cour v. Life360, Inc., 16-CV-00805-TEH, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98945, 2016 WL 4039279, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2016); Booth v. Appstack, Inc., No. 13-1553JLR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68886, 2016 WL 3030256, at *7 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2016). In Mbazamo, the court held that a violation of the TCPA represents a concrete injury because "[t]he history of sustaining claims against both unwelcome intrusion into a plaintiff's seclusion and unceasing debt-collector harassment are squarely 'harm[s] that [have] traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit.'" Mbazomo, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170186, 2016 WL 7165693, at *2 (quoting Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549-50). The court declined to follow Romero, explaining that Romero "improperly erodes the pleading standard set under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) . . . . A plaintiff [need only] plausibly tie the alleged acts of the defendant to the alleged harms suffered." Id.