Posts tagged "1110014"

Hazel’s Cup and Saucer, LLC v. Around the Globe Travel, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-100-14)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030;   13-P-1371                                       Appeals Court   HAZEL’S CUP & SAUCER, LLC  vs.  AROUND THE GLOBE TRAVEL, INC. No. 13-P-1371. Suffolk.     May 8, 2014. – August 22, 2014.   Present:  Rubin, Wolohojian, & Maldonado, JJ. Consumer Protection.  Practice, Civil, Class action.  Telephone.  Advertising.       Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on March 8, 2010.   A motion for class certification was heard by Frances A. McIntyre, J., and entry of judgment was ordered by her.   Tod A. Lewis, of Illinois, for the plaintiff.      RUBIN, J.  The Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) forbids the use of “any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited advertisement.”  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) (2006).  The TCPA creates a private right of action for recipients of unsolicited advertisements received by facsimile (fax), entitling them to collect from the sender the greater of actual damages or $ 500.  Treble damages are available in the case of knowing or wilful violations. Florida travel agency Around The Globe Travel, Inc. (Around The Globe) hired New York fax broadcaster Business to Business Solutions (B2B) to assist it with advertising a Super Bowl party on a cruise ship.  Using a list of fax machine telephone numbers purchased from a third party, B2B sent 2,325 faxes to 1,640 different Massachusetts business fax numbers on August 2 and 3, 2006.  One of the recipients was the plaintiff, Hazel’s Cup & Saucer, LLC (Hazel’s). Hazel’s brought this case as a putative class action in the Superior Court against the defendant Around The Globe.[1]  The submissions of Hazel’s to the lower court describe some of the difficult and costly procedures undertaken by Hazel’s, its counsel, and its expert witness in order to find both Around The Globe and B2B, and to identify the recipients of the advertisement at issue. The motion judge denied a motion for class certification under Mass.R.Civ.P. 23, as amended, 452 Mass. 1401 (2008).[2]  With respect to the four factors listed in rule 23(a) — numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation — the judge found the requirements of the TCPA easily met.  As for the factors outlined in rule 23(b) — predominance of common questions of law and fact over issues affecting only individual members, and superiority of class action over other methods of adjudication — the judge […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - August 22, 2014 at 5:21 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , , , ,