fbpx

Data Software Services/Elead1One California Phone Call Recording Class Action Lawsuit

This case is one of two related class actions filed by plaintiff Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin about a telephone call with defendant Data Software Services, LLC, doing business as Elead1One.

The class for this case was all persons in California whose cell phone conversations were recorded, without their consent, by Data Software Services or its agents, between March 7, 2016 and March 7, 2017.

On or about September 7, 2016, Ronquillo-Griffin says that she received a message on her cell phone with a pre-recorded voice, asking her to return the call for an important message about her vehicle. Thinking it might involve a recall or some other important matter, she returned the call. According to the complaint, she reached a recorded message and was placed on hold for awhile, and the person who came on the line after that immediately asked for her cell phone number, which she gave, thinking that the matter was important. However, the complaint says, “[s]hortly after speaking with Defendant’s representative, it became apparent that Defendant’s call was purely made for marketing purposes.”

At no time during the call did the company representative say they were recording the call, nor were there beeping sounds indicating a recording in progress. When asked if the call was being recorded, the representative said no. However, Ronquillo-Griffin claims that the call was recorded, and that the company records all its calls.

Later, Ronquillo-Griffin filed two class actions against the company.

The first was filed on March 3, 2017, in federal court, alleging that the company had violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by placing a marketing call to her cell phone without her consent.

The second, this action, was filed on March 7, 2017 in state court, alleging that the company had violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by recording the call with her, without warnings and without authorization. According to the complaint, this was illegal both because of the illicit recording and as an invasion of privacy.

Most recently, defendant Data Software Services has filed to remove the California case to federal court. First, it claims that the underlying facts presented for the two cases are nearly identical. Second, it claims that, given the large number of calls made by Data Software Services, the case would meet federal standards for the amount of money at issue in a class action. Third, it says that under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, there exists a “diversity of jurisdiction” because defendant Data Software Services is based in Georgia, while plaintiff Ronquillo-Griffin is based in California. 

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer

Most Recent Case Event

Notice of Removal in Data Software Services/Elead1One Call Recording Class Action

June 8, 2017

The Notice of Removal in Data Software Services/Elead1One California Cell Phone Call Recording Class Action was filed by the case's defendants to remove the case from the California courts to federal court. First, it claims that the underlying facts presented for the plaintiff's two cases (one in federal court, one in state court) are nearly identical. Second, it claims that, given the large number of calls made by Data Software Services, the case would meet federal standards for the amount of money at issue in a class action. Third, it says that under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, there exists a “diversity of jurisdiction” because defendant Data Software Services is based in Georgia, while plaintiff Ronquillo-Griffin is based in California.

This document includes copies of the complaints for both the plaintiff's cases against the company, attached as Exhibits A and B.

 

 

data_software_recording_telepohone_calls_complaint.pdf

Case Event History

Notice of Removal in Data Software Services/Elead1One Call Recording Class Action

June 8, 2017

The Notice of Removal in Data Software Services/Elead1One California Cell Phone Call Recording Class Action was filed by the case's defendants to remove the case from the California courts to federal court. First, it claims that the underlying facts presented for the plaintiff's two cases (one in federal court, one in state court) are nearly identical. Second, it claims that, given the large number of calls made by Data Software Services, the case would meet federal standards for the amount of money at issue in a class action. Third, it says that under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, there exists a “diversity of jurisdiction” because defendant Data Software Services is based in Georgia, while plaintiff Ronquillo-Griffin is based in California.

This document includes copies of the complaints for both the plaintiff's cases against the company, attached as Exhibits A and B.

 

 

data_software_recording_telepohone_calls_complaint.pdf
Tags: Recording Calls Without Consent, Your Privacy