What is going on with the practice of law these days?

I know, I know– I sound like an old guy. And I guess the Czar is getting a bit old.

But back in my day (leaning into it) lawyers took time to prepare quality briefs with well-organized and thoughtful arguments and–importantly– pristinely presented exhibits for the court’s consideration.

But Troutman Amin, LLP may be a dying breed in that respect.

Consider Callier v. Jascott Investments, et al 2025 WL 92391 (W.D. Tex. Jan 14, 2025). There repeat-TCPA litigator Brandon Callier just rose to an easy victory over a TCPA defendant’s summary judgment effort and the poor quality of the motion work by the defense lawyers appears to be the culprit.

Check this out. This is literally how the Court begins its analysis of the motion:

As an initial matter, Investments’ summary-judgment exhibits are a mess. Its opening brief cites to more than 1000 pages of exhibits by letter, but almost all exhibits have no letter label or have exhibit stickers with random numbers. Investments’ “Exhibit A” is 275 pages of discovery Investments apparently produced to Plaintiff, including inoperable placeholder sheets for audio recordings. The Court also received all 248 pages of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript along with its exhibits which contain internally inconsistent exhibit stickers derived apparently from exhibit stickers from discovery, using both numbers and “Plaintiff’s Exhibit” lettering. The Court is satisfied that it was ultimately able to locate the exhibits Investments intended to cite but respectfully requests greater care in future pleadings. 

Oh man, that’s just awful. Anytime a court refers to your filing as a “mess” you know you’re not going to win– and Investments did not win. Not even close.

Indeed it appears the court thought the defense was basically wasting its time.

The Defendant argued Callier’s phone number was not residential in nature, but since Callier attested he used it for residential purposes the Defendant wasn’t going to in that one.

Defendant argued the number wasn’t on the DNC list– but again Callier attested that it was. So a jury needs to figure it out.

And Defendant argued Callier consented to receive calls but that assessment relied on a declaration that did not comply with the rules and was stricken. So… yeah.

Meanwhile Callier moved for cross-judgment on his own claims. The Court came close to granting judgment to Callier but determined a jury needed to confirm whether the ownership of his number was for residential or business purposes.

So yeah, bottom line– do better guys! A guy like Callier shouldn’t be skating to easy wins over bad motions.