Daniel Human Fraudulent TCPA Case Sanctions: Judge Schelp Issues Order

• Daniel Human received sanctions from a Missouri federal judge for filing a fraudulent TCPA lawsuit against Fisher Investments.
• Human initiated the case in bad faith by providing false information to solicit calls, then suing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
• The plaintiff engaged in severe discovery misconduct, including destroying his desktop computer just two days before a court-ordered inspection.
• U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp awarded Fisher Investments fees and expenses due to Human's and his attorney Edwin Butler's obstruction and fraud.
• This case serves as a stark warning about the significant penalties for fraudulent litigation and spoliation of evidence.

This ruling underscores the severe repercussions, including significant financial penalties, for litigants and their counsel who engage in fraudulent claims and obstruct the judicial process through discovery misconduct.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp, presiding in the Eastern District of Missouri, recently issued a significant sanctions order against Daniel Human, a plaintiff known for initiating approximately 70 class action lawsuits related to alleged illegal robocalling. The September 30 ruling awarded fees and expenses to Fisher Investments Inc., the defendant in the specific case, citing Human's profound misconduct. Judge Schelp explicitly stated that Human's fraudulent TCPA case sanctions were warranted because the entire action originated from the plaintiff's deceit, noting, "Human initiated this case in complete bad faith."

The core of the deception involved Daniel Human providing a false name alongside his phone number to deliberately solicit communications from Fisher Investments. Following this calculated move, Human then proceeded to file claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act fraud, a statute that provides for substantial statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per illicit call. This pattern of behavior, which Judge Schelp unequivocally labeled as fraud, formed the basis for the court's stern response.

Throughout the litigation, both Daniel Human and his St. Louis-based attorney, Edwin Butler attorney sanctions, were found to have actively impeded the legal process. Their actions included a persistent failure to meet discovery obligations and a concerted effort to obstruct, delay, and hinder the progress of the lawsuit. This deliberate obstruction culminated in a particularly egregious act of discovery sanctions spoliation evidence, further detailed in the court's findings.

The extent of the misconduct in this Daniel Human fraudulent TCPA case sanctions became glaringly apparent through the plaintiff's handling of discovery requests. According to the court's findings, Daniel Human consistently failed to produce required discovery materials. When faced with mounting pressure and a court order for inspection, Human resorted to destroying critical evidence. Specifically, he trashed his desktop computer just two days before it was scheduled for a court-ordered examination.

Adding to the pattern of deception, Human subsequently presented what was described as a "decoy" laptop, an act that further underscored his intent to mislead and obstruct. This deliberate destruction of evidence, a clear instance of spoliation evidence, was a pivotal factor in Judge Schelp's decision. The judge highlighted that Human and his counsel, Edwin Butler, "obstructed, delayed and hindered the progress of this litigation by many means and relentlessly avoided their discovery obligations."

The bad faith litigation Missouri aspect of this case is particularly striking, as it involved not just a failure to comply with procedural rules but an active subversion of the judicial process. The actions taken by Human, with the apparent involvement of his attorney, demonstrated a clear intent to prevent the defendant, Fisher Investments TCPA defense, from accessing information crucial to their defense. Such conduct directly undermines the integrity of the legal system and warrants the severe penalties imposed by the court.

The September 30 sanctions order from Judge Matthew Schelp sanctions serves as a potent warning to plaintiffs and their legal representatives regarding the severe consequences of fraudulent litigation and discovery abuses. The court's decision to award fees and expenses to Fisher Investments was a direct result of Human's initiation of the case in "complete bad faith" and the subsequent obstruction tactics employed by both Human and Edwin Butler attorney sanctions. This outcome reinforces the principle that courts will not tolerate attempts to manipulate the legal system for personal gain through deceit.

The case also sheds light on the high stakes involved in Telephone Consumer Protection Act fraud claims, where statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 per call can incentivize plaintiffs to manufacture scenarios for litigation. Despite the potential for significant payouts, Fisher Investments TCPA defense steadfastly refused to settle, choosing instead to pursue the matter through litigation, ultimately exposing the plaintiff's fraudulent scheme and securing a favorable sanctions ruling.

This ruling underscores the severe repercussions, including significant financial penalties, for litigants and their counsel who engage in fraudulent claims and obstruct the judicial process through discovery misconduct. The actions of Daniel Human and his attorney, Edwin Butler, in this Daniel Human fraudulent TCPA case sanctions provide a stark example of how courts will respond to such egregious behavior, emphasizing the critical importance of ethical conduct and adherence to discovery obligations in all legal proceedings.

This case serves as a stark warning to plaintiffs and their counsel regarding the severe repercussions, including significant sanctions and fee awards, for initiating fraudulent litigation and engaging in discovery misconduct like spoliation of evidence. Lawyers should advise clients on the ethical obligations and potential penalties associated with such actions, particularly in high-volume class action contexts.

Source: Original reporting via Law.com