A Texas district court entered summary judgment against a plaintiff who had brought TCPA claims against a debt collector, finding no genuine issue of fact because the plaintiff’s recollection was equivocal and the defendant’s records were not. The case is Anderson v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC, No. 6:25-cv-00102, 2026 WL 318773 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 16, 2026), in which the magistrate judge recommended granting the motion. That report and recommendation was adopted by the district court at 2026 WL 316533 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2026).
The plaintiff had sued Monterey Financial Services, LLC, claiming it had violated the TCPA by calling his cellphone in an effort to collect a debt, including after he had instructed it to stop calling him. The case was before the court on Monterey’s motion for summary judgment.
Monterey’s motion showed that Anderson had consented to the calls when he signed the underlying contract giving rise to the debt. It also showed that Anderson did not revoke his consent until January 23, 2025, after which all prerecorded phone calls ceased, and only a limited number of manual calls were made.
Anderson argued that those material facts were in genuine dispute. Relying on his own testimony, he claimed that he had made numerous requests for the calls to stop. Although he could not remember when he had made those requests, he argued that his testimony alone created a triable issue of fact regarding whether he had been called after his revocation of consent.
The court reviewed the record, found no triable issue of fact, and entered summary judgment in favor of Monterey. Monterey had records showing that Anderson had revoked consent on January 23, 2025, and that no more prerecorded calls were made after that date. For his part, Anderson was unable to rebut those records with unequivocal testimony; although he was adamant that he had revoked consent, “he could not remember exactly when he asked [Monterey] to stop calling,” saying only that it was “likely around January of 2025.”
Because that statement was more or less consistent with Monterey’s evidence, the court entered summary judgment in its favor. “While testimony may be sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact,” Magistrate Judge John D. Love wrote, Anderson’s “equivocal testimony does not rebut [Anderson’s] business records that establish that no prerecorded phone calls were made to [Anderson] without express consent.”
