Legal Opinion

Kemen v. Cincinnati Bell Inc.

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Decided March 22, 2024No. 1:22-cv-00152Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION SUSAN KEMEN, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:22-cv-152 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This case is about unsolicited telemarketing calls—or as they are more commonly known, spam calls. Plaintiff Susan Kemen alleges that Defendant Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, LLC (Cincinnati Bell), violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, by making unwanted telemarketing calls to her cell phone. (Second Am. Compl., Doc. 19). The matter is now…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Rodriguez v. Tennessee Laborers Health & Welfare FundCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
  2. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1953
  3. Operating Engineers Local 324 Health Care Plan v. G & W Construction Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2015
  4. James Jonathan Mapp v. The Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, James Jonathan Mapp, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees v. The Board of Education of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee, Defendants-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1963
  5. Federal Deposit Insurance v. Banc of America Securities LLCDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2013

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API