Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Melanie Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 18-14499 · judgment January 27, 2020


Certiorari denied · April 19, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 6% cert probability (95% interval 4%–9%)

Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and an Eleventh Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.

Question presented

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), Pub. L. No. 102- 243, 105 Stat. 2394, prohibits use of an “automatic telephone dialing system” (“ATDS”) to initiate voice calls and text messages to certain phone numbers, including numbers assigned to cellular telephone service, without the prior express consent of the called party. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). Petitioner sued Respondent for violating this provision after Respondent used a predictive dialer to place timeshare telemarketing calls to Petitioner’s cellular telephone. The district court entered judgment for the Respondent on the grounds the dialing system used to send the messages does not qualify as an ATDS, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The TCPA defines ATDS as “equipment which has the capacity— (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1). The first question presented is whether this definition encompasses predictive dialers, which automatically dial telephone numbers stored in a list and then forward those calls to a human being only if somebody answers the phone. Or, is the definition limited only to systems that utilize a random or sequential number generator to generate arbitrary numbers to be called? The Court recently granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to consider this question in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511, 2020 U.S. Lexis 3559 (July 9, 2020). The second question presented is whether a predictive dialer is removed from

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Keith James Keogh
Keogh Law, LTD

For respondent
Shay Dvoretzky
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Apr 19 2021
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Apr 12 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
  3. Feb 17 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.
  4. Jan 29 2021
    Brief of respondent Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC in opposition filed.
  5. Dec 11 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 29, 2021.
  6. Dec 10 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 30, 2020 to January 29, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Nov 30 2020
    Response Requested. (Due December 30, 2020)
  8. Nov 17 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
  9. Sep 28 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 2, 2020)