Good morning patrickp463-ga and thank you for allowing me to research
your question. I was able to identify two attorneys in CO, and two
attorneys in TX (one claiming ?we have not lost a TCPA case yet?). I
hope this information, along with the rest is helpful to you.
The Federal law passed in 1991 known as the TCPA makes it illegal to
send any material transmitted via facsimile that advertises the
commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services
which is transmitted to any person without that person's prior express
invitation or permission. If the fax was deliberately sent to you,
federal law entitles you to recover a minimum of $500 and, depending
the judge's discretion, up to $1,500 for each such fax that you
receive.
Public Law 102-243 (which includes the TCPA, 47 USC 227), the FCC
Regulations at 47 CFR 64.1200, Report and Order 92-443, Memorandum,
Opinion and Order 95-310, and Order on Further Reconsideration 97-117.
Public Law 102-243:
( http://www.junkfaxes.org/TCPA/pl102243.htm )
US Code Title 47, Section 227 :
( http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000227----000-.html
)
FCC Regulations:
( http://www.fcc.gov/ )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
With that siad, here are the attorney's I found. Please be aware that
I cannot validate whether they are Plaintiff's attorneys or defense
attorneys but I would assume that any attorney familiar with the TCPA
laws and statutues might be willing to go either way.
Irwin & Boesen, P.C.
501 South Cherry Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80246-1327
303-320-1911 Phone
303-320-1915 Fax
800-964-1911 Toll Free
( http://www.irwin-boesen.com )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Law Office of Jerold A. Greenker
111 East Dale Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719) 473-3700 phone
(719) 473-8290 fax
mikefoster7@yahoo.com
Consumer Advocacy, specializing in TCPA, FDCPA & FCRA
Perhaps, if the aforementioned attorneys have not won many cases, you
can have them talk to the attorneys listed below who can possibly
defend you Pro Hac Vice (Latin meaning "for this one particular
occasion." The phrase usually refers to an out-of-state lawyer who has
been granted special permission to participate in a particular case,
even though the lawyer is not licensed to practice in the state where
the case is being tried.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Donald (Don) H. Brandt, Jr., P.C.
P.O. Box 851683
Richardson, TX 75085-1683
voice: (214) 502-4051
email: dhb@brandtlaw.com
Mr. Brandt states: "I have done/am doing quite a number of them here
in Texas. I originally sued ABF before the Texas AG went after them. I
do general consumer litigation, but TCPA has become a boutique area
for our office, and we have not lost a TCPA case yet."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Law Office of Mark R. Lee
814 San Jacinto #409
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 478-6275
(512) 478-2710 fax
Mr: Lee States: "I have done a number of these cases and have been
reasonably successful in all cases - since obtaining a judgment in
Texas is relatively simple, but collecting it is another matter!
Consequently, I can only state that I have been reasonably successful,
since some of my clients would rather have the money, but are still
happy to have the faxes stop."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The following is a list of TCPA cases in CO:
Bailey v. Cookies in Bloom, 2001 TCPA Rep. 1033 (Colo. D.C. July 6,
2001) (appeal from small claims ct.)
Bailey v. J&L Consulting, Inc., 2004 TCPA Rep. 1301 (Colo. Dist. Aug
10, 2004). (reversal on appeal)
Holcomb v. SullivanHayes Brokerage Corp., 2002 TCPA Rep. 1078 (Colo.
Dist. Feb. 25, 2002) cert denied (appeal)
Lion Capital, LLC v. Alliance Fin. Capital, Inc., 2004 TCPA 1357 (Co.
Dist. June 21, 2004) (order granting plaintiff MSJ)
Livingston v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 58 P.3d 1088, 2002 TCPA Rep. 1202 (Co.
App. May 9, 2002) (order affirming denial of class cert.)
Mainstream Mktng. Svcs., Inc. v. FCC, -- F.3d --, 2003 TCPA Rep. 1227
(10th Cir. Sep 25, 2003) (order denying motion to stay FCC order)
Mainstream Mktng. Svcs., Inc. v. FTC, -- F.Supp. --, 2003 TCPA Rep.
1225 (D.Colo. Sep. 24, 2003) (order granting in part and denying in
part ptf. MSJ.)
Mainstream Mktng. Svcs., Inc. v. FTC, 2003 TCPA Rep. 1229 (10th Cir.
Oct 7, 2003) (order granting stay of trial court ruling)
Mathemaesthetics, Inc. v. Lassiter Mktg. Group, LLC, 2002 TCPA Rep.
1061 (Colo. Dist. June 6, 2002) (order granting Pl. MSJ)
Mathemaesthetics, Inc. v. Reiner, 2001 TCPA Rep. 1039 (Colo. Dist.
Aug. 15, 2001). (appeal from county ct.)
McKenna v. Accurate Computer Svcs, Inc., 2002 TCPA Rep. 1115 (Colo.
Dist. Nov. 7, 2002) (statute of limitations)
McKenna v. Accurate Computer Svcs, Inc., 2002 TCPA Rep. 1135 (Colo.
Dist. Feb. 24, 2002) (order denying Def. MTD re constitution)
Physicians Data Inc., v. US West Wireless, L.L.C., 2000 TCPA Rep. 1016
(Colo. Dist. Aug 14, 2000) (order den. Def. mtn. to dismiss)
Rice v. Vacations Outlet of Colorado, 1998 TCPA Rep. 1120 (Colo. Dist.
June 18, 1998) (appeal)
US Tax Law Center, Inc. v. Capital Arbitration, Inc., 2004 TCPA Rep.
1352 (CO. Dist. Dec. 8, 2004) (reversed and remanded)
Official court records held by the Clerk of the Court are presumed to
be open to any member of the public for inspection or to obtain copies
at all times during regular hours of operation at the office having
custody of the records to the extent allowed by applicable statute,
court rule or court order. The procedure for obtaining a criminal
record varies depending upon the jurisdiction, which holds the record,
and the purpose for which you require the record.
You may be able to contact the Clerk of the Court in the particular
counties that any given case listed above has been tried in and
request a copy of that particular court file. It should list the
Plaintiff?s attorney, which would give you a better idea of which
attorneys or firms in CO handle such cases.
I hope this answers your question. If you would like clarification
before rating my answer, please do not hesitate to ask and good luck!
Nenna-GA
Google Researcher
Sources:
Junkfax.org
( http://www.junkfax.org/fax/basic_info/attorneys.htm )
tcpalaw.com
( http://www.tcpalaw.com/free/cases.htm )
Google Search Terms:
( ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=Telephone+Consumer+Protection+Act+attorneys&btnG=Search
)
( ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=junk+fax+attorneys&btnG=Search
) |
Clarification of Answer by
nenna-ga
on
21 Jun 2005 06:29 PDT
As I stated in my answer above, without talking to these lawyers
directly, I was uncertain whether the lawyers I listed for you were
Plaintiff's attorneys or defense attorneys. Knowing that there are
not many lawyers who specialize in the area of TCPA laws and statutes,
I recommended contacting them to see if they would be willing to
defend you if they were indeed Plaintiff?s attorneys. I also gave you
a list of ?junk fax? cases and advised you that as a member of the
general public, you could check out any of the case files to see the
names and contact information of the attorneys who defended (however,
I mistakenly referred to as ?Plaintiff?s attorney? when I should have
said defense attorneys).
Please be aware that it is incredibly difficult to find a ?defense
attorney? for junk fax cases on the web. You were right when you
stated that these attorneys have nothing better to do than to file
these frivolous lawsuits asking for hundreds of thousands of dollar.
However, the good news is, there is a federal law limiting the award
to a minimum of $500 and, depending the judge's discretion, up to
$1,500 for each fax.
I talked to some of the lawyers at the office I work at and found a
Colorado case (appealed by Plaintiff and won by the Defendant) along
with the defense attorney contact information. I thought it might be
of some use to you if the attorney you hired does not work out.
Dorsey & Whitney, LLP
Republic Plaza Building
370 17th Street, Suite 4700
Denver, CO 80202-5647
Phone: (303) 629-3400
(888) 868-3514 (Toll Free)
Fax: (303) 629-3450
Website: ( http://www.dorsey.com )
Tucker K. Trautman - ( http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1969025_1?noconfirm=0 )
Stephen Hall - ( http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3084935_1?noconfirm=0 )
The original case name is John L. Livingston and Westland Marketing,
Inc., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Defendant and the Court of
Appeals Number is 01CA0605.
I spoke with Kim at the Court of appeals regarding their process for
checking out files. They informed me that the public is allowed to
view any file so long as they are not protected. It costs $.75 per
page for a copy. You can send a request for copies to them at:
Colorado Court of Appeals
2 E. 14th Ave., Third Floor
Denver, CO 80203
303-837-3785
The original case was filed in the District Court of Denver County,
Colorado and the case Number is 00CV0773. You can contact the Denver
County District Court at (720) 865-8301 (they have no 800 number).
= = = = = = = = = =
An interesting article I found in one of our law magazines, though I
don?t know if it would be pertinent to your particular case:
??A Denver federal court ruling could help put Colorado companies such
as US Fax Law Center Inc. and Consumer Crusade Inc. -- which try to
collect damages for illegal "junk faxes" -- out of business.
Tom Martino, a Denver TV and radio consumer advocate, helped launch
Consumer Crusade and continues to support it.
Chief Judge Lewis Babcock of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado ruled March 28 that junk fax recipients can't "assign" the
faxes to third parties such as US Fax Law and Consumer Crusade under
current law.
Though the Babcock decision comes from one judge and affects one junk
fax suit, the repercussions could be far-reaching, according to local
attorneys.
Other judges, both in Colorado federal and state courts, could use the
ruling as a basis for deciding their own junk fax cases. Defendants
who already have been sued by companies soliciting faxes and lost, or
paid damages to them outside of court, could have strong grounds for
appealing those outcomes.
Companies such as US Fax Law and Consumer Crusade suffered another
significant legal setback last year. State court judges split over
whether they should even hear junk fax cases.
In 2004, Denver District Judge Martin Egelhoff and several other state
court judges ruled Colorado courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases
involving junk faxes sent from 1999 through 2003, because they're
private cases involving the federal junk fax law.
Egelhoff said states can choose whether to hear junk fax cases based
on federal law, and Colorado has "opted out," or chosen not to.
But other state court judges contend they have jurisdiction.
Consumer Crusade's attorney, Agim "Jim" Demirali of The Demirali Law
Firm in Denver, has appealed Egelhoff's decision to the Colorado
Supreme Court.
Junk faxes are fax advertisements sent to individuals and businesses
without their permission, and they became illegal in the 1990s.
In the last few years, companies such as US Fax Law and Consumer
Crusade have become controversial for seeking out junk fax recipients
and asking them to assign their faxes to them. On his faxwars.com Web
site, Martino said assigning faxes to Consumer Crusade was "an easy
way for consumers to get revenge (and a little cash)" against junk fax
senders.
Such companies go after junk fax senders in and out of court,
sometimes seeking thousands and even millions of dollars in damages.
But the original fax recipients get only a modest fee, usually $25 per
fax, and only if damages are collected.
Consumer Crusade and similar businesses claim they're trying to get
rid of junk faxes. Critics, including many small businesses and
nonprofits pursued by the companies, call such efforts litigation
mills trying to make money off the law.
US Fax Law has filed more than 1,000 junk fax suits in Colorado alone
in the last few years, according to the company.
Consumer Crusade filed more than 80 lawsuits in Colorado courts in
2004, and 25 suits in Denver federal court during a few days in
February, according to court records. Consumer Crusade's federal suits
seek a total of more than $18 million in damages.
"The Babcock ruling is important because, while it is not directly
binding on state courts, it's a federal court interpreting state law,
so the ruling is quite persuasive to state courts," said Karen Brody,
an attorney at Lowe, Fell & Skogg LLC of Denver. Brody represents the
defendants in the case on which Babcock ruled.
Shortly after Babcock's decision, Brody filed a motion for summary
judgment in the case, saying there's no real basis for the suit and
that the judge should rule in the defendant's favor.
US Fax Law's attorney, Frank Ball of Denver, and Demirali didn't
return phone calls to their offices.
"The ruling could make it very difficult financially for fax mills to
continue," said John Sadwith, executive director of the Colorado Trial
Lawyers Association.
Sadwith is concerned about third-party companies that go after junk
faxers because such companies have targeted business organizations
similar to his, including the Independent Bankers of Colorado and
World Trade Center Denver.
Denver attorney Roger Castle, who represents businesses being sued by
US Fax Law, thinks Babcock's ruling "strikes a balance."
"The fax blasters still can be put out of business by injunctions, and
the real victims still have their rights," Castle said.
Babcock's decision relates to a 2004 federal court lawsuit filed by US
Fax Law, a Centennial-based company headed by collections attorney
Andrew Quiat, against IHire Inc.
The suit originally was filed in Arapahoe County District Court last
year, but was transferred to federal court in February 2004.
In the suit, US Fax Law alleged IHire sent 143 junk faxes to several
companies in violation of federal and state law. U.S. Fax Law sought
$151,000 in damages plus extra damages because they alleged the
defendants knew they were violating the law when they sent the faxes.
Including attorney's fees and court costs, the US Fax Law sought a
total of $478,000 in damages for the faxes, according to the suit.
Junk faxes became illegal with the enactment of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991. Colorado came up with its own
junk fax law called the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) in
1999. Those laws were designed to protect consumers and businesses
from broadcast-fax companies such as Fax.com Inc., whose business is
sending out huge numbers of fax advertisements.
In his ruling, Babcock said those who get junk faxes can sue fax
senders, but companies that are assigned faxes by recipients have no
standing to sue, since they didn't receive the faxes themselves.
The judge said junk faxes aren't assignable to third parties because
the federal junk fax law says nothing about assignability, and
Colorado law doesn't allow assignments for "matters of personal trust
or confidence, or for personal services." Junk faxes fall into that
category, according to the ruling.
Babcock also said federal law sees junk fax cases as invasion of
privacy claims, and such actions aren't assignable by law. "Under
well-established law, a cause of action for invasion of privacy is not
assignable and cannot be maintained by persons other than the
individual whose privacy is invaded," the ruling said.
Yet another part of the ruling relates to the federal junk fax law's
penalty component.
Usually the right to seek a penalty can't be assigned when the law
doesn't expressly say it can, because "the assignability of such
claims encourages litigation," the decision said. The federal junk fax
law doesn't say faxes can be assigned.
Both federal and state law allow recipients of junk faxes to sue for
as much as $500 per fax in damages, plus another $1,500 per fax if the
sender knowingly broke the law by sending the fax??
Source: American City Business Journals, April, 2005
= = = = = = = = = =
I would have been more than happy to clarify anything in my answer and
done more leg-work for you rather than you being disappointed in my
answer and having to research this on your own. If you need anything
further, please do not hesitate to ask.
Nenna-GA
|
