Dobronski v. Russo: Thirteen Defendants, Unknown Telemarketers, and a Complaint That Didn't Connect the Dots

The Calls

The plaintiff, representing himself, sued four law firms, two other companies, two unregistered business names, and five individuals under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). He alleged they used third party telemarketers to robocall people en masse about Camp Lejeune water contamination claims, hiding their identities until a retainer agreement showed up.

His case focused on eighteen calls over two weeks in August 2023. On the first, after a "bonk" sound, a caller from "Injury Claims Services" asked about Camp Lejeune service and transferred him to a second telemarketer, who emailed a contingency fee agreement on one firm's letterhead, prefilled with the fake "canary trap" identity he'd given. A later call produced another agreement on two other firms' letterhead. Thirteen calls with "CONSUMER ENROLL" on caller ID hung up as soon as he answered. His counts were based on autodialing, hang-ups, abandoned calls, internal do-not-call rules, caller identification and spoofing.

Venue: The VoIP Twist

The defendants said the venue belonged in Florida as he had a Florida area code, and any Michigan calls were just forwarded. The court disagreed. The complaint alleged he was at his Michigan home for every call, and his Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service rings at both his Florida and Michigan homes at once. That's not forwarding, so a substantial part of the events happened in Michigan. Venue was proper.

Notice: Where It Fell Apart

Rule 8 requires a complaint to give each defendant adequate notice of the claims against it. The complaint described each defendant's role in detail, but every count was pleaded against "Defendants or Defendants' agent."

The court explained why that matters under the TCPA. A defendant who initiates a call is directly liable; one who didn't can be vicariously liable through actual authority, apparent authority or ratification. The plaintiff admitted he didn't know who the telemarketers were. "Defendants or Defendants' agent" could mean all thirteen made the calls, or all thirteen authorized others, or ratified the benefits. The complaint never tied specific facts or defendants to any one theory.

The court also rejected a conspiracy theory making everyone liable for every call. The complaint itself said "numerous entities, including Defendants," run mass tort robocall campaigns. So the hang-up calls in particular could have been from someone else entirely.

The court applied this reasoning to the non-moving defendants, as they were in the same position, and dismissed the remaining claims without prejudice. It didn't reach whether the claims stated a TCPA violation.

Compare the Other Dobronski Rulings

Same plaintiff, same district, and similar cases like Dobronski v. Tobias & Associates, the group pleading worked because each defendant's part was tied to specific calls. Here, unknown telemarketers, thirteen defendants with very different parts, fictitious business names and calls not tied to everyone was the difference.

Takeaways

• Plead a theory per defendant. Direct, actual authority, apparent authority or ratification, and which calls were involved.
• Hang-up calls are hard to attribute. Without content, linking them to a specific defendant is tough.
• VoIP can support venue where the subscriber actually receives the calls.

Read the Eastern District of Michigan opinion and order.