BEAVER
v.
PODS ENTERPRISES, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff adequately stated claims under the TCPA and FCCPA, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff rented a storage unit from the defendant and signed an agreement allowing calls regarding accounts. After accruing debt, the defendant calle…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Automatic Telephone Dialing System cases and more on FLexlaw
Alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Ashley E. Beaver sues (Doc. 1) PODS Enterprises, LLC. The defendant moves (Doc. 41) under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff responds. (Doc. 18)
In 2023, the plaintiff rented a storage unit from the defendant. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 12) The 'rental agreement' signed by the plaintiff provides that “Customer agrees to permit [the defendant] to contact Customer using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or a prerecorded voice regarding . . . accounts payable.” (Doc. 11-1 at Ex. 3 ¶ 28) The plaintiff failed to pay as scheduled and amassed about $2000 in debt. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 13) The defendant began calling the plaintiff's cellular phone to collect the debt. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 14) The plaintiff answered one of these calls and requested that the defendant cease calling her. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 15) After the plaintiff's initial request, the defendant continued calling the plaintiff several times each day to collect the debt.
The defendant used a prerecorded message from a specific phone number. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 17-21) To repeat her requests, the plaintiff answered several of these automated calls—but to no avail. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 20)
The TCPA prohibits “any person” from “any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.” 47 U.S.C. § 27(b)(1)(A)(iii). The complaint adequately alleges the facts necessary to state a claim under the TCPA because the complaint specifies that the calls used an automated service and that the plaintiff revoked any consent by requesting that the defendant stop calling her. See Deegan v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, 2020 WL 13356789 at *3 (M.D.Fla. 2020) (finding that allegations that calls at issue were placed by a recorded voice are sufficient to state a claim under the TCPA); Smith v. Markone Financial, LLC, 2015 WL 419005 at *4 (M.D.Fla. 2015) (noting that an oral revocation of consent is effective).
The FCCPA prohibits a debt collector from “willfully communicating with the debtor or any member of her or his family with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass the debtor or her or his family, or willfully engage in other conduct which can reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the debtor or any member of her or his family." Fla. Sta. § 559.72(7). Although the defendant correctly maintains that repeated calls to the debtor about a debt are not necessarily harassment, the plaintiff alleges that, despite repeated requests, the defendant continued to call daily.
[*2]Borneisen v. Capital One Financial Corp., 2011 WL 2730972 (M.D.Fla. Jul. 13, 2011), aff'd, 490 Fed.Appx. 206 (11th Cir. 2012).
The defendant's motion is DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 19, 2025.
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 3 -