New plaintiff, Jeffery H., alleges in a lawsuit filed on Sept. 5, 2017 that he received at least a thousand robocalls from Navient in an attempt to collect a debt.
According to the legal documentation of a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, those robocalls from Navient Solutions LLC were made using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS).
An ATDS is equipment capable of storing and/or generating telephone numbers to be called in a sequential or random manner without the aid of human involvement.
The narrative of the lawsuit states that Jeffery H. expressly withdrew any consent early on when he started to receive robocalls from Navient Solutions.
The plaintiff accused the company of expressly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) which is 47 United States Code (USC) 227. He also accuses defendant Navient of violating the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), which is Florida Statute 559.55.
Tenets of the TCPA
The TCPA was passed by Congress in 1991 as a means of protecting the privacy of its citizens. The basic tenets of the TCPA outline the type of acceptable and unacceptable behavior surrounding corporate use of a consumer’s private telephone line.
It states that solicitors may not call residences using a pre-recorded voice. It states that solicitation calls must be kept within reasonable hours and cannot occur before eight a.m. or after nine p.m.
Furthermore, the TCPA expects solicitors to keep their own internal “do not call” list and honor that list up to a five-year period.
It also expects solicitors to honor the National Do Not Call Registry, which puts consumers from unwanted phone call indefinitely. Finally, in addition to forbidding the calling of emergency lines, urgent care facilities, hospitals, and similar agencies, it disallows solicitors from tying up businesses with multiple lines with solicitation phone calls.
The consumer is given remedies under the TCPA. The act allows for the consumer to sue violators of the act for $500 per violation or up to three times proven actual damages.
The Elements of This Case
According to the legal filing, the plaintiff revoked his permission to receive these robocalls from Navient on or about Feb. 1, 2014. From then until the present, the defendant was not deterred. Rather, they allegedly continued their campaign of telephone harassment using an ATDS for up to 1,000 phone calls.
In addition to invading his privacy, the plaintiff is allegedly distressed because he and others like him pay for the time such phone calls take within their cellular telephone plans.
These phone calls also deplete the battery life of the phone. For many people in today’s world, running down their phone battery could cut off their main source of communication. A lot of people no longer have land lines.
Jeffery H., in retaliation for the harassment of robocalls from Navient made to him, brings the following counts against the defendant: Count One – Violation of the TCPA; Count Two – Violation of the FCCPA; and Count Three – Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
He is asking for a trial by jury with a favorable judgment on his behalf which would include statutory damages, punitive damages, actual damages, and all court and attorney fees returned to him.
The Navient TCPA Lawsuit is Case No. 8:17-cv-02112-JSM-JSS in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
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.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2026 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
