Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

January 21, 2017

BRIAN M. JACKSON, individually and on behalf of class Plaintiff,
v.
CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., ADSOURCE MARKETING LTD, and DOES 1-10 Defendants.

          Kleinman, LLC Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff Abraham Kleinman, Esq., Of Counsel

          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff Dan Edelman, Esq., Cathleen M. Combs, Esq., Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq., Of Counsel

          Siprut PC Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff Joseph Siprut, Esq., Ismael T. Salam, Esq., Of Counsel

          WeiLite Depalma Greenberg LLC Co-Counsel for the Plaintiff and Proposed Intervenor Richard Gordon Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq., Of Counsel

          Greenspoon Marder, P.A. Co-Counsel for the Defendant Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. Jeffrey Backman, Esq., Richard W Epstein, Esq., Brian Cummings, Esq., Of Counsel

          Morgan Melhuish Abrutyn Co-Counsel for the Defendant Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. Shaji Mathew Eapen, Esq., Of Counsel

          NO APPEARANCES: Adsource Marketing Ltd The Defendant

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER

          ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge

         This action was brought by the Plaintiff Brian M. Jackson (the “Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of a class, against the Defendants Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (the “Defendant CCL”), Adsource Marketing Ltd (the “Defendant Adsource”) and Does 1-10, alleging various violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 727 (the “TCPA”).

         Presently before the Court are two motions. The Plaintiff has filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.” or “Rule”) 41 to dismiss the action. He asks that the Court dismiss his claims with prejudice and the claims of the class without prejudice. The second motion was made by Richard Gordon (“Gordon”), presently not a party to the action, seeking to intervene pursuant to Rule 24.

         For the following reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss his claims with prejudice; finds that it does not have jurisdiction over any putative class claims upon dismissing the Plaintiff's claims; and grants Gordon's motion to the extent that the Court accepts the motion as an amicus brief.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. The Relevant Facts and Procedural History

         On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class, filed a putative class action complaint against the Defendant CCL and Does 1-10 alleging various violations of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.