A federal court in California has denied nearly all of a defendant's motion to dismiss in Koeller v. TD Synnex Corp., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150070 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2026), a putative TCPA class action over telemarketing calls to a number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. The defendant challenged standing, the sufficiency of the claim, and the request for treble damages ($1,500 per call).
All three arguments failed, and for the same basic reason: the complaint already pleaded the facts the defendant claimed were missing. The motion to dismiss was a waste of Court's time and the defendant's money if you ask me.
The plaintiff's number has been on the do-not-call registry since 2007. He alleged he received three calls in two weeks soliciting him to buy the defendant's products. On the first call, he told the caller his number was on the DNC registry and instructed them not to call again. Two more calls followed and the plaintiff filed suit.
The defendant first argued the plaintiff lacked standing because the calls couldn't be traced to it—they might have come from some third party allegedly. But at the pleading stage, a court must accept the complaint's factual allegations as true. And the complaint alleged that on every call, the callers identified themselves as calling from the defendant.
The defendant next argued the complaint failed to state a claim because it didn't establish the defendant actually made the calls. The Court explained that a defendant is directly liable under the TCPA if it placed the calls itself, and the complaint pleaded exactly that with specifics: callers who named the defendant, pitched the defendant's own products, on three identified dates. Those aren't conclusory allegations—they're the factual details that tie the calls to the defendant. Cases where similar arguments succeeded involved callers who named a different company or complaints with no facts connecting the calls to the defendant at all. Not the situation here.
Finally, the defendant asked the Court to strike the request for treble damages, arguing the plaintiff hadn't alleged a willful or knowing violation. The Court's answer: "Not so." Willfulness under the TCPA generally just means the conduct was intentional, not that the defendant intentionally violated the law. The plaintiff alleged he told the caller his number was on the DNC registry and to stop calling—but the calls continued anyway. Calling someone twice more after being told to stop is about as clean an allegation of a knowing/willful violation as it gets.
The motion succeeded only in dismissing the request for injunctive relief, with leave to amend. Everything that actually matters—the TCPA claim, the class allegations, the treble damages exposure—survived. Every argument the defendant briefed required the Court to look past allegations it was bound to accept as true.
That's a motion that was never going to work, and now the case moves forward as it should.
Bravo.
