Another lawsuit involving an alleged violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1) (the “Quiet Hours Provision”) just got filed in the U.S. Central District of California by none other than Jibrael Hindi’s office, which has filed plenty of quiet hours cases (and the word plenty is a severe understatement). If you follow TCPAWorld regularly, then you definitely know what I am talking about.
As a refresher, 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. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). Section 227(c)(2), on the other hand, implements additional regulations, including the Quiet Hours Provision, which provides the same private right of action for telephone solicitations made either before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., in the recipient’s local time. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(2); C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(1).
In this latest suit, Nancy Lopez Botto v. Allied Property Management LLC d/b/a Crickle Daisy, 2:26-cv-04492 (C.D. Cal. April 28, 2026), Nancy Lopez Botto, alleges that on or about December 1, 2025, she received at least two (2) text messages from Crickle Daisy before the hours of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time in her location.
A screenshot of the text message is below:
What is interesting is that Plaintiff alleges that at least two messages were sent to Plaintiff before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at Plaintiff’s location). It is important to remember that there have been rulings to support the fact that a recipient’s area code determines the recipient’s time zone. See Jubb v. CHW Group Inc., No. 23CV23382 (EP) (MAH), 2025 WL 942961 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2025).
However, from the screenshots provided in the complaint, only exactly two marketing messages were sent and only one can be confirmed before 7 a.m. The screenshot depicts a lady in pajamas that shows the message was received at 6:08AM but in the other message right above it does not include the time it was received so it is unclear when that text message was sent or received. There are no other messages shown to be sent during the quiet hours as defined in the TCPA.
Similarly to other blogs that covered other cases that Jibrael Hindi’s office filed, Plaintiff here is not only seeking damages for herself but she is attempting to certify a nationwide class of people who also received marketing messages from Crickle Daisy during the quiet hours.
The class definition is:
All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location).
As before, TCPA carries statutory violations of $500 per text and up to $1,500 if they were knowing and willful violations. For the two alleged text messages that Plaintiff received outside the quiet hours, she could recover up to $3,000. However, that number of course could go up exponentially if the class is certified. As discussed in previous blogs, if even 50 additional people each received one marketing message outside the quiet hours, that would increase the potential liability to $26,000 if simply using the base statutory amount.
Again, it is important to note that from the screenshot included in the complaint, only one text message is confirmed to have been received before 8:00AM. As a result, counsel for Crickle Daisy should make sure to thoroughly investigate these allegations.
It will be interesting to see how this case develops, particularly as the “quiet hours” provision within the broader TCPA framework remains an evolving area of law. Notably, Jibrael’s office has filed a number of similar actions in recent months. Readers may recall that the firm recently voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, one such case (see the prior blog discussion below).
At the same time, the volume of these filings—and related efforts to train attorneys to pursue similar TCPA claims—suggests a broader strategy focused on high-frequency litigation (and Jibrael has admitted as much). Based on the allegations and supporting materials included in certain complaints, defendants should increasingly question the sufficiency of the evidence underlying these claims.
It will be worth watching whether Crickle Daisy elects to litigate this matter through motion practice or beyond. A more active defense posture in these cases could provide additional judicial guidance on pleading standards and evidentiary requirements and may ultimately influence (and potentially deter) how frequently similar claims are brought going forward.
