Lifetime Wants to Force Settlement in Robocall Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

The Lifetime network asked the court to require a plaintiff who accused the cable company of violating federal law by “robocalling” people to market a TV show in 2009, to accept the settlement offer.

Lead plaintiff Michael Leyse accused Lifetime of violating the Telephone Consumer Protections Act of 1991 (TCPA) when the network allegedly used automated phone machines to dial people and play a pre-recorded message to advertise its TV show, “Project Runway.” The plaintiff claimed that under the TCPA, class members are entitled to $500 per violation or up to $1500 if the violations as “willful.”

In 2013, Lifetime moved to dismiss the class action lawsuit by arguing that since they weren’t selling anything, only advertising a TV show, the TCPA shouldn’t apply. A federal judge disagreed and allowed the class action to continue.

However, U.S. District Court Judge Hellerstein refused to certify the proposed class. Judge Hellerstein explained that the plaintiff failed to find a list of numbers Lifetime allegedly robocalled. According to Leyse, a separate company had been used by Lifetime to do the robocalling and that company had changed hands and neither the company nor Lifetime kept a list of robocalled numbers.

Lifetime offered Leyse a $1503 settlement to end the action. According to documents filed by the court, the plaintiff had until Jan. 19 to respond to the settlement offer, but missed the deadline. The motion filed with the court states that Leyse “would be entitled to a maximum award of $1,500.00—$500 in statutory damages, plus $1,000 in order to triple the statutory damages in the event the Court found the alleged violation of the statute willful or knowing.”

Last week, Lifetime asked Judge Hellerstein to force the plaintiff to accept the settlement because it will award $3 more to the plaintiff than he would receive if he won the Lifetime class action lawsuit.

“Under established Second Circuit precedent,” argued Lifetime in its motion, “when an offer of judgment under Rule 68 provides for the complete relief that a plaintiff is seeking in a lawsuit, the appropriate course of action is for the district court to enter judgment consistent with the offer of judgment.” “Inasmuch as the plaintiff has attained the full recovery to which he could be entitled,” continued Lifetime, “there is no longer a live case or controversy between the parties and the court should dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the case is moot.”

“Because,” states Lifetime in its motion to end the class action lawsuit, “the Offer of Judgment provides complete relief to Plaintiff, the Court should enter judgment consistent with its terms, even though he declined to accept it.”

Leyse is represented by Todd C. Bank of the Law Office of Todd C. Bank.

The Lifetime Robocall Class Action Lawsuit is Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-05794, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an unsolicited text message (text spam) or prerecorded voice message (robocall), you may be eligible for compensation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.