Roderick Smith v. Equrra, LLC

Smith v. Equrra, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-10975 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan · October 16, 2025 · No. 4:25-cv-10975

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Equrra, LLC’s motion to dismiss a proposed class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court held that the plaintiff plausibly alleged unreasonable delays in honoring opt-out requests and that his telephone number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry; prior express consent was treated as an affirmative defense.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Writing for the Court
F. Kay Behm
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Decision date
October 16, 2025
Docket number
4:25-cv-10975
Procedural posture
Defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint asserting claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court denied the motion.
Standard of review
On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and determines whether the complaint contains sufficient factual matter to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Dismissal may be appropriate when an affirmative defense appears on the face of the complaint.
Precedential value
unpublished district court opinion; precedential status unknown
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

consumer protectionmotions to dismisspleadingsclass actionscivil procedure

Practice areas

consumer protectiontelecommunications lawclass actionscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that Equrra violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by failing to honor Smith's opt-out request within a reasonable time and by failing to maintain required do-not-call procedures.
  2. Whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged a violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1) based on solicitation messages sent to a number allegedly registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.
  3. Whether Smith was required to plead the absence of prior express consent to state a TCPA claim.

Holdings

  1. The amended complaint plausibly alleged that Equrra failed to honor Smith's opt-out request within a reasonable time and failed to maintain required do-not-call procedures. Two alleged messages were sent after the 30-day period, making the delay per se unreasonable, while the reasonableness of the earlier message could not be resolved from the pleadings.
  2. The amended complaint plausibly alleged a claim under § 64.1200(c)(2) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1) by alleging that Smith registered his telephone number on the National Do Not Call Registry on or about June 18, 2011.
  3. Smith was not required to plead the absence of prior express consent because consent is an affirmative defense to TCPA liability rather than an element of the plaintiff's prima facie claim.

Key quotations

Moreover, the complaint must “contain[ ] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (Analysis § II.A)
The reasonableness of a period less than 30 days cannot be determined from the pleadings alone. (Analysis § II.B)
consent is an affirmative defense that a plaintiff is not required to plead to assert a TCPA claim. (Analysis § II.D)

Factual background

Smith alleged that Equrra used automated text messaging to promote its goods and services. He alleged that he opted out of Equrra's messages on September 10, 2024, received an automated confirmation, and nevertheless received additional solicitation texts on September 12, October 11, and November 11, 2024. He also alleged that his telephone number had been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since approximately June 18, 2011.

Procedural history

Smith filed a proposed class action complaint alleging that Equrra sent unsolicited text messages, continued sending messages after he opted out, and contacted numbers listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Smith filed an amended complaint, and Equrra moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. After briefing and a hearing on October 15, 2025, the court denied the motion and ordered Defendant to answer within 21 days.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…