No. 18-1258

Enclarity Inc., et al. v. Matthew N. Fulton

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-03-29
Status: GVR
Type: Paid
Response RequestedRelisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-procedure commercial-availability commercial-communication commercial-transaction communication-law due-process fax-regulation information-request standing statutory-interpretation telecommunications telephone-consumer-protection-act unsolicited-advertisement unsolicited-faxes
Key Terms:
Securities Privacy ClassAction
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether faxes that only request information and propose no commercial transaction with recipients are 'advertisements' under the TCPA

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Telephone Consumer Protection Act regulates the sending of “unsolicited advertisement[s]” to fax machines. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). The statute defines “advertisement” as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services.” Id. § 227(a)(5). The question presented is: Whether faxes that only request information and propose no commercial transaction with recipients are “advertisements” under the TCPA.

Docket Entries

2019-11-08
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2019-10-07
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 588 U. S. ___ (2019).
2019-07-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-02
Reply of petitioners Enclarity Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2019-06-13
Brief of respondent Matthew N. Fulton in opposition filed.
2019-05-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
2019-05-14
Response Requested. (Due June 13, 2019)
2019-03-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 29, 2019)

Attorneys

Enclarity Inc., et al.
Joseph Russell PalmoreMorrison & Foerster LLP, Petitioner
Matthew N. Fulton
Phillip A. BockBock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, Respondent