Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
LEYSE v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Case Number:
2:11-cv-07128
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
March 16, 2020
Law Firm Investigator Can't Pursue BofA Robocall Class
A New Jersey federal judge has tossed a long-running proposed class action over unsolicited, prerecorded telemarketing calls from Bank of America, ruling Friday that the suing customer wasn't harmed because he actually welcomed the calls as a paid investigator for a law firm specializing in robocall lawsuits.
-
October 11, 2016
BofA Must Face TCPA Class Action Over Prerecorded Call
A New Jersey federal judge on Tuesday denied Bank of America NA's bid to throw out a proposed Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action, ruling the case can't be dismissed because it is "sufficiently distinct" from another class-action complaint brought against the bank based on the same phone call.
-
September 09, 2014
BofA Escapes TCPA Class Action Over Prerecorded Call
A New Jersey federal judge on Monday nixed a putative class action accusing Bank of America NA of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit because he was not the intended recipient of the telemarketing call that prompted the claims.