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 Business Practices

Younus Bayat and Mohammed Ereikat, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank of the West

Published: Jan. 10, 2015 | Result Date: Jul. 22, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-02376-EMC Settlement –  $3,354,750

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Daniel M. Hutchinson
(Lieff, Cabraser, Heiman & Bernstein LLP)

Jonathan D. Selbin
(Lieff, Cabraser, Heiman & Bernstein LLP)

Nicole D. Sugnet
(Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP)

Matthew R. Wilson
(Office of the Attorney General)


Defendant

Arjun P. Rao
(Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP)

Lisa M. Simonetti
(Vedder Price PC)


Facts

Younus Bayat and Mohammed Ereikat filed a class action against Bank of the West in connection with alleged phone calls they received from the Bank.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank called plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, on their cellular phones using an automated telephone dialing system and/or using an artificial or prerecorded voice, without first obtaining their prior express consent.

Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank's conduct constituted a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs asserted that "prior express consent" under the TCPA requires that the consent be given clearly and unmistakably at the time a consumer opens a bank account.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The Bank, in general denied plaintiffs' allegations, and asserted various affirmative defenses. The Bank also disputed plaintiffs' definition of "prior express consent," contending that customers could give prior express consent by providing the Bank with their cellular telephone numbers at any point during the banking relationship.

Result

The parties reached a $3,354,756 settlement.


#99481

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

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