Joshua Brenner v. American Education Services

575 F. App'x 703
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 26, 2014
Docket14-1340
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 575 F. App'x 703 (Joshua Brenner v. American Education Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Joshua Brenner v. American Education Services, 575 F. App'x 703 (8th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Seth Brenner appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his action against American Education Services (AES), brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227. On de novo review, this court reverses and remands for further proceedings. See Butler v. Crittenden Cnty., Ark., 708 F.3d 1044, 1048-49 (8th Cir.2013).

Brenner complained that AES violated the TCPA when it repeatedly called his cell phone number about his student loan debt, using an automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded or artificial voice, without his consent, and continued to make such calls after he provided written notice to AES in July 2012, to stop calling him about his loan debt. The district court granted summary judgment to AES, finding that Brenner voluntarily provided his cell phone number to AES on numerous occasions, and expressly agreed to receive the type of calls made. This court agrees that Brenner gave express consent to receive calls from AES to his cell phone number by providing that number on multiple forbearance requests and he specifically authorized AES to use an automatic telephone dialing system to contact him at that number before the complained-of calls began. See Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 707 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2012) (prior express consent is consent to call particular telephone number in connection with particular debt that is given before call in question is placed).

The district court did not address Brenner’s argument that he revoked his consent in July 2012. It is undisputed that AES continued to make calls to Brenner’s cell phone after this date. Thus, if Brenner effectively revoked his consent, summary judgment was not proper. While this court has not yet addressed the issue of revocation, two other circuit courts have concluded that prior consent to call one’s cell phone may be revoked under the TCPA. See Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242, 1255-56 (11th Cir.2014); Gager v. Dell Fin. Servs., LLC, 727 F.3d 265, 270-72 (3d Cir.2013).

The grant of summary judgment for AES is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court to consider whether Brenner’s evidence supporting his contention that he revoked consent was sufficient to preclude summary judgment for AES, *704 and for further proceedings as appropriate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ammons v. Ally Fin., Inc.
326 F. Supp. 3d 578 (M.D. Tennessee, 2018)
Aquilar v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
289 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (D. Maine, 2018)
Cartrette v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
157 F. Supp. 3d 448 (E.D. North Carolina, 2016)
Reardon v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
115 F. Supp. 3d 1090 (N.D. California, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
575 F. App'x 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joshua-brenner-v-american-education-services-ca8-2014.