Legal Opinion
Charles Jones v. Royal Administration Services
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 9, 2017No. 15-17328PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Charles Jones and Josh Watson seek to hold Royal Administration Services, Inc. (“Royal”) vicariously liable for several telephone calls made in violation of the Tele phone Consumer Protection Act (“TOPA”), 47 U.S.C, § 227, by telemarketers employed by All American Auto Protection, Inc. (“AAAP”). Royal can only be held vicariously liable for these calls if the telemarketers were acting as its agents,' as defined by federal common law, when the calls were placed. To determine whether the AAAP telemarketers were Royal’s agents or independent contractors, we apply…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. ReidSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. GomezSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
- Hollingsworth v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 2013
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Jones v. Royal Admin. Servs., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Charles Jones v. Royal Administration ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
- Rahimian v. AdrianoDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2022