Share
A Minnesota federal court has entered an injunction against Ryan Swanberg (“Caller”), who had threatened real estate brokerages across the country with litigation last fall for not complying with his request for their company “Do Not Call” policy within five days of the request. The injunction prohibits the Caller from “citing or relying upon the TCPA or its regulations as grounds upon which to make demands, seek payment of money or the compromise of any claims whatsoever”.
The Caller employed the following method. First, he would contact the real estate brokerage via facsimile and ask that his phone number be placed on the company’s internal “do not call” list. He would also request that the brokerage mail him a copy of the company’s policy for maintaining its internal “do not call” list within five days. If the Caller did not receive the brokerage’s “do not call policy” within five days, he would threaten to file a lawsuit against the brokerage in Minnesota state court. To avoid the lawsuit, the Caller would offer the brokerage the opportunity to settle the matter for around $5,000.
Re/Max Ideal Properties, Inc. (“Brokerage”), an Oregon real estate brokerage, filed a lawsuit against the Caller in response to his threats. When the Caller failed to appear or file an answer in response to the lawsuit, the United States District Court for the District Court entered an injunction against the Caller, finding that failure to do so could cause the Brokerage to “suffer irreparable harm based on the Caller’s activities”. The court ordered the entry of an injunction and made the following declaratory judgments:
the Brokerage had not violated the TCPA and its supporting rules by not responding to the Caller’s demands
the Brokerage did not have to respond to the Caller’s demands
the Caller did not hold a private right of action pursuant to the TCPA
the Caller is not entitled to payment of money pursuant to the TCPA and its regulations
Finally, the court permanently enjoined the Caller against “citing or relying upon the TCPA or its regulations as grounds upon which to make demands, seek payment of money or the compromise of any claims whatsoever”.
Below is a copy of the court’s order:
Re/Max Ideal Properties, Inc. v. Swanberg, No. 06-4843 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2007). [Note: This opinion was not published in an official reporter and therefore should not be cited as authority. Please consult counsel before relying on this opinion.]