The Neptune Society Class Action Lawsuit

Class action lawsuit is one of the preferred methods of putting a lawsuit behind you. The term class action lawsuit is commonly used to describe a lawsuit that allows multiple plaintiffs to band together and sue one company for injuries they may have sustained as a result of the corporation’s wrongdoing. In the past, such lawsuits were usually handled in state courts but more recently they are being handled in federal courts.

 Neptune Society Class Action Lawsuit

Plaintiffs Linda Allard started this lawsuit in May of 2016 with a federal lawsuit filed in a U.S. District Court in Tennessee against defendant SCI Direct Inc.

Allard claims that Neptune Society placed unwarranted telemarketers on her telephone to her on a regular basis, sometimes daily. She also claims her personal life was compromised because she repeatedly received harassing phone calls at work.

As expected, a settlement between the parties will likely be agreed upon in the coming months.

The details will vary depending on individual circumstances. However, it is expected that a class action settlement will be reached before the conclusion of the current lawsuit.

The settlement will resolve the issues raised in the original complaint, including the question of whether or not SCI Direct had a Do-Not-Call List violation when calling her.

A Do-Not-Call list is an electronic list that corporations are required to place on their telephones if they want to be able to call anyone without facing penalties.

This list is available to all customers who speak with an 800 number, but a lot of people try to avoid putting this list on their phones when they talk to representatives.

This could be one of the reasons why a Neptune Society class action lawsuit was filed against SCI Direct and it may also explain why no settlement was reached in the original lawsuit.

While the Do-Not-Call list could have been used to warn Neptune Society class members about calling agents of the Neptune Society, there is no proof that such a warning ever existed.

There is no evidence that any such warning has ever been displayed on any of the company’s phones. Additionally, it is not known whether or not any settlement was reached out of the lawsuit.

When Neptune sued SCI Direct, the defendants did not admit liability or even deny the allegations.

Instead, they moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the lawsuit was barred by the First Amendment. In a motion to dismiss, the defendant direct stated that it was not a party to the underlying lawsuit, that it did not commit any wrongdoing, and did not know of the plaintiffs’ claim.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed this motion. In doing so, the court left open the possibility that SCI may be liable for telemarketers’ calls and for failing to warn Neptune about the plaintiffs’ impending lawsuit.

There was evidence at trial of some questionable conduct on the part of the defendants.

Among other things, defendants steered Neptune representatives to call individuals who did not want to receive more information about the lawsuit. Further, the defendant direct allowed the use of personal phone numbers (including the plaintiff’s) in connection with telemarketers’ calls and did not require any proof that the calls were targeted at the plaintiff.

One reason why the defendants chose not to settle the suit is that they felt it would be a difficult matter for courts to decide between them and the plaintiffs.

The defendants also feared that a class action lawsuit might preclude any new claims by current or former customers of the defendant’s defendant phone services. There is no question that a class-action lawsuit can chill the sales of telemarketers’ and other marketers’ products, if there is such a lawsuit.

The only way to resolve this issue would be for the defendants to agree to stop calling the plaintiff and agree not to make future telemarketing calls. However, a class-action lawsuit, even if it settles a large percentage of cases, is still likely to cost a defendant’s clients much more money than settling a small claims case.