This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Unfair Competition

Ronald Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services

Published: May 20, 2022 | Result Date: Apr. 12, 2022 | Filing Date: Sep. 13, 2018 |

Case number: 5:18-cv-05623-BLF Settlement –  $16,200,000

Judge

Beth L. Freeman

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

John W. Barrett
(Bailey Glasser, LLP)

Brian A. Glasser
(Bailey Glasser, LLP)

Allison W. Parr
(Tycko & Zavareei LLP)

Charles D. Moore
(Reese LLP)


Defendant

Bryan O. Balogh
(Burr Forman LLP)

Robert T. Campbell
(Simmonds & Narita LLP)

Tomio B. Narita
(Simmonds & Narita LLP)


Facts

Intero Real Estate Services is a company that facilitates the sale of real estate throughout the San Francisco Bay area. After receiving numerous calls from Intero Real Estate agents, Ronald Chinitz brought a class action against the company.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that he received repeated and unwanted telephone calls to his phone number, which was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff presented evidence that his landline telephone number received six calls from or on behalf of defendant within a 12-month period, and that the calls were from a sales associate associated with defendant asking if he was interested in relisting his house for sale. Plaintiff testified that he found the calls from defendant's agents intrusive, obnoxious, harassing and unwanted. Plaintiff asserted that the unwanted calls were an invasion of privacy. Plaintiff testified that he repeatedly asked the callers not to call him back, but they kept calling.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

The case settled for $16.2 million.


#138792

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390