Hey everyone, Nathen Barton here. As someone who stands firmly with my friend and fellow litigator, Christopher Laccinole. My comrade in arms, who has also made this litigating business as our own. Draws the same cards as me on the main litigation as a business.
It’s been something to watch him hold these companies accountable. Let’s talk about the recent ruling in—a case that shows how the game is played, and how persistence pays off.
You know the drill. Big companies think they can blast out calls to anyone, anytime. And when someone like Laccinole pushes back, they immediately try to paint him as some kind of problem, instead of addressing their own practices. But here’s the breakdown of what really happened in court.
The case is straightforward: Rocket Mortgage called Christopher at least 14 times. He’s never been a customer. The calls were pushing a financial product, used a robotic-sounding voice, and came in a relentless, repetitive pattern—the classic signs of an automated system.
Rocket Mortgage, like clockwork, filed a motion to dismiss, hoping to knock the case out early. But the judge saw right through it on the core TCPA claims.
The Win on the ATDS Claims:
The court used the Supreme Court’s Facebook definition of an autodialer. Now, the judge even called some of the allegations “threadbare,” but then confirmed the crucial point: TCPA claims don’t need hyper-technical detail at this stage. Alleging a uniform, robotic voice on repeated, unsolicited sales calls is enough. The motion to dismiss those claims was denied. The case moves forward on that front. That’s a win for common sense.
The Setback on the DNC Claims:
The court did grant the motion to dismiss the separate Do-Not-Call registry claims. The ruling said those allegations needed more specific, factual detail beyond reciting the legal elements. It’s a procedural hurdle, and it shows the different standards courts apply to different parts of the law.
The Real Takeaway:
This ruling is a perfect example of the fight. Companies and their lawyers get slicker, but so does the understanding of the law. They want to talk about “serial litigators” to distract from the “serial violators.” The court, for the most part, focused on the substance of the allegations, not the person making them. It shows that with a clear, factual pattern of harassment—those 14 uniform calls—you can get past their first line of defense and into the real fight.
It’s a grind, but rulings like this prove the path is there. They rely on people getting frustrated and giving up. We don’t. On to the next phase.
Stay sharp,
Nathen Barton