With every successful serial plaintiff, there is a highly organized, specialized network of attorneys behind them. While people love seeing pictures of Melody Stoops juggling dozens of prepaid cell phones out of a shoebox, the business of the litigation company doesn’t take place in a vacuum. To get the cell phone numbers from the call log to legal demand, a professional plaintiff must form a relationship with a consumer law firm that thrives on the private right of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Stoops’ litigation history within Pennsylvania and nationwide showcases an organized, multi-jurisdictional legal structure, enabling widespread, scaled statutory demands against the corporate world.
The volume of Stoops’ litigation suggests this wasn’t a random one-off hobby. Her federal court filings show she brought at least 11 separate and complete TCPA actions within the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alone. But formal federal filings are merely the endpoint of aggressive, compliance-driven enforcement efforts. Long before a case makes it to a judge, a plaintiff will begin issuing demand letters in an effort to convince the corporate legal department to quickly settle. Stoops was one such plaintiff; she issued at least 25 different formal demands to a collection of financial service providers, credit card companies and mortgage lenders.
To prosecute such a widespread attack on corporate America, Stoops didn’t simply employ a local attorney. Instead, she relied on a team of consumer law firms across the country, from her home state of Pennsylvania to the shores of southern California. This multi-firm alliance consisted of:
1.The Law Offices of Joseph R. Manning, Jr. is headquartered in the wealthy legal hub of Newport Beach, California and is notorious for its very aggressive tactics in consumer statutory law.
2. Sabatini Law Firm, a Pennsylvania-based firm, located in Dunmore, Pennsylvania, provided Stoops with crucial local counsel, well acquainted with the local rules of the Third Circuit.
3. Howard Law The firm, based out of Anaheim, California, is a West Coast legal powerhouse in consumer statutory litigation.
4. Glenn C. Romano, P.C. is another law firm based in Pennsylvania. Located in Harbor, she has completed her Pennsylvania legal representation.
By employing an alliance of law firms located both in California and Pennsylvania, the professional plaintiff is able to manage many different corporations throughout the nation at one time. The firms based in California represent a large infrastructure which has become well-versed in class action frameworks and high-volume statutory law, while firms located in Pennsylvania are the source of necessary local jurisdiction for the filing of claims in local common pleas courts and federal district courts, rather than expending fees in travel or pro hac vice admissions.
The plaintiff firm relationship is driven by the mechanics of TCPA damages, and a profit incentive to pursue serial, low-overhead, high-volume claims. The per-call, flat penalty damages offered by TCPA ($500-$1500 per automated call) give the math preference to the plaintiff’s strategy of high volume. The cases provide law firms with an opportunity to operate a low-overhead, high-predictability statutory law business: a client has a call log, the firm reviews it, checks for consent, and produces a demand or complaint using standard, boilerplate templates. It becomes increasingly economical for corporations to pay out settlements rather than defend federal lawsuits, providing a constant stream of profit.
But the risks of high volume, multi-firm statutory claims can’t be ignored. When a plaintiff is exposed to judicial scrutiny, such as by Judge Kim R. Gibson in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the operations of the client become a part of the record of the lawsuit itself, the law firms involved may be exposed to serious backlash from the court. The extent of the organized effort is a key component.
In Stoops’ case, the evidence presented revealed that not only was there a systemic effort to defraud consumers, but that the whole operation was a family affair when the defendants presented into evidence a contemporaneous complaint filed in Cambria County by Stoops’ sister, Tashia Campbell, against the Student Assistance Corporation, clearly showing that there was no coincidence in Stoops’ aggressive course of litigation.
Once a law firm is identified as part of a professional plaintiff operation, its legal reputation, standing within the judicial community, and even potential for further sanctions is severely damaged as cases shift from statutory wins to arguments against bad precedent.