Hi TCPAWorld:
I just wanted to give you all a quick update on the case Trevion Sherman v. Prime Fish LLC, DBA PRIMEFISH SEAFOOD CO., 5:26-cv-00669 (C.D. Cal. Feb 13, 2026).
Here is the blog that I made where it discusses the case back when it was first filed.
To quickly recap, this was a “quiet hours” case where Plaintiff alleged that since February 26, 2025, he received more than two (2) text messages from Prime Fish before the hours of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time in his location.
The “quiet hours” provision under the TCPA prohibits initiating telephone solicitations before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. local time of the called party. The DNC provision provides that, when an individual whose phone number has been registered on the national DNC registry for more than thirty days receives more than one telephone solicitations in a twelve-month period, that individual has a private right of action.
Here, from the screenshots provided in the complaint (which are included in the blog linked above), only exactly two marketing messages were sent before 7 a.m. (one on February 26, 2025 and the other some time on May 30, 2025). There are no other messages shown to be sent during the quiet hours as defined in the TCPA.
Plaintiff just filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. No substantive developments occurred, as Defendant filed neither an answer nor any responsive motions to the complaint.
The fact that Plaintiff voluntary dismissed the complaint with prejudice (meaning that Trevion has chosen to drop the case and can never file it again) indicates that either some sort of settlement was reached or Plaintiff did not have enough evidence to go off on. Both explanations are speculative; however, the former is more plausible, as it would be illogical for Plaintiff’s counsel to initiate an action knowing it lacks any likelihood of success, which could implicate sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for pursuing claims without evidentiary support.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s dismissal with prejudice indicates that, as a condition of settlement, Plaintiff agreed to be barred from refiling the action. As for Defendant, any settlement may have reflected a determination that resolution was more cost-effective than litigating, irrespective of the perceived merits.
All this means here is that this case will not give us more insight into litigation involving alleged violations of the “quiet hours” provisions. However, as more cases get filed (and from Jibrael Hindi’s office no less), the greater the potential there is for cases to go through the judicial process thus providing more clarity into how this area of law is treated by the courts.
