/>iSo, what do the TCPA and pulling teeth have in common? Let’s find out!
In Starling v. Henegar, No. 3:24-CV-03043, (N.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2024), Plaintiff Starling claims Defendant Arthur W. Henegar, d/b/a Henegar Dental sent three unsolicited telemarketing text messages to Starling’s residential number, which was registered on the DNCR.
According to the screenshot Starling included in her complaint, the first text she received on May 6, 2024, stated:
From Henegar Dental: 972-594-6915…You are overdue for your cleaning. Get rid of bad bacteria in your mouth… We now have In House Dental Plans and financing options for those with no insurance. Call or text today.
Id. at 35. Plaintiff alleges that she received a similar text on June 12, 2024.
Frustrated with the receipt of such messages, Starling called Henegar Dental and informed them that she was receiving these texts. Well, Henegar Dental claimed that it was due to Starling being a patient as recently as 2010. That would make sense. When asked to be placed on the internal DNC list, Henegar Dental said they had no such list–*ouch*–and that she would have to respond with “STOP” to halt these texts.
When Starling allegedly received yet another text from Henegar on July 25, 2024, she claims to have responded “STOP.”
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Northern District of Texas alleging three causes of action. First, she claims Henegar Dental violated 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5) by making two or more telephone solicitations to her residential number, despite its presence on the DNCR. Second, Plaintiff claims that Henegar Dental violated 47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5) by failing to maintain an internal DNC list as required by the TCPA. Finally, Plaintiff claims that Henegar Dental violated Section 305.053 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code, which creates a state law cause of action for violations of the federal TCPA—beware of these mini state TCPAs.
Starling seeks to represent the following three classes:
Plaintiff and all persons within the United States to whose telephone number Defendant placed (or had placed on its behalf) two or more telemarketing text messages in a 12-month period when the telephone number to which the telephone calls or texts were made was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry for more than 30 days at the time of the calls/texts, from four years prior to the filing of the Complaint through class certification.
(“Registry Class”)
Plaintiff and all persons within the United States whose telephone number Defendant placed (or had placed on its behalf) two or more telemarketing text messages in a 12-month period, during the time period when Defendant did not have in place an internal do-not-call list from four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint to the date of class certification.
(“Internal Do Not Call Class”)
Plaintiff and all residents of the State of Texas to whose telephone number Defendants placed (or had placed on their behalf) a telemarketing call or text messages, from four years prior to the filing date of the Complaint through class certification.
(“Texas Class”)
Id. at 61.
Now, I ask you again.
What do the TCPA and pulling teeth have in common?
You’re going to wish you hired an expert
