Javitch Law Office | Attorney Advertising
Current as of July 19, 2026
The lawsuit
On June 11, 2026, we filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of two consumers who say they received prerecorded telemarketing calls they never agreed to receive. The case is Joseph James and Brian McBride v. Arsalan Ghanbari, et al., No. 8:26-cv-01489-FWS-BFM, assigned to United States District Judge Fred W. Slaughter.
The complaint names several related companies that market debt-relief, tax-resolution, and business-funding services — including Lendvia LLC, Better Tax Relief, LLC, Better Companies LLC, Better Rise Capital LLC, and Range View Management LLC — along with three individuals alleged to control them.
The allegations, which the defendants have not yet answered, are straightforward. One plaintiff says he received more than 200 prerecorded calls to a cellular number that had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2012. The other says he received prerecorded calls soliciting business funding on a number registered since 2004. Neither says he ever asked to be called.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act generally prohibits prerecorded calls to a cell phone without the recipient's prior express written consent, and provides for statutory damages of $500 per call, which a court may increase to $1,500 for willful violations. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b).
What makes this case unusual
In our experience, most robocall defendants respond to a TCPA claim by producing a lead record — a form the consumer supposedly filled out on a website, with a name, a phone number, and a timestamp.
The companies here do something more elaborate. They produce what is called a "Verified Consent" certificate: a document generated by an outside vendor bearing a certificate number, a date and time, a website address, an internet protocol address, a screen size, an operating system, a browser — and a link to a video replay said to show the consumer filling out the form.
Presented that way, it looks conclusive. A sworn declaration filed by the vendor's chief technology officer in a Pennsylvania case described the certificate as "immutable proof" that the consumer visited the website and agreed to its terms.
Consumers who receive these calls often tell us the same thing: they have never heard of the company, never visited the website, and do not recognize the internet address on the certificate.
What other courts have done
The certificate has now been placed before at least four federal courts. None of them has treated it as conclusive, and none has ordered the case to arbitration on the strength of it.
- Newell v. LendVia, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-01018 (E.D. Pa.). In June 2025, the court denied a motion to compel arbitration without prejudice and ordered limited discovery on whether an agreement existed. In August 2025, after that discovery, it found genuine disputes of fact and held the motion in abeyance for trial.
- Collins v. Better Debt Solutions, LLC, No. 8:24-cv-01263-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.). On March 31, 2025, Judge Slaughter — the same judge assigned to our case — held a motion to compel arbitration in abeyance. He found that the plaintiffs' declarations, stating that they had not visited the website and did not recognize the internet addresses listed on the certificates, "are sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact." He declined to disregard those declarations as self-serving, noting that a plaintiff is not required to prove a negative. Two of the four plaintiffs in that case also said the personal information on the certificates was wrong — in one instance, a different Social Security number and last name.
- Mizel v. Lendvia, LLC, No. 8:25-cv-01034 (M.D. Fla.). In February 2026, the court denied the motion to compel and set the question for a summary trial, finding the movant had "narrowly met its initial burden."
- Aurandt v. Range View Management LLC, No. 3:25-cv-05785 (W.D. Wash.). On June 11, 2026, the court denied both a renewed motion to compel arbitration and a renewed motion to stay discovery, and set the arbitration question for trial. That case remains pending.
There is a further feature of this history worth noting. In each of those cases the court found a genuine dispute and set the matter for trial on whether an agreement was ever formed. So far as the public record reflects, no such trial has ever taken place. Three of the four cases resolved before it.
This is not an isolated dispute
Public court records reflect at least sixteen federal TCPA lawsuits filed against these companies and their affiliates since 2024, in district courts including the Central District of California, the Western District of Texas, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Middle District of North Carolina, the Northern District of Georgia, the District of New Mexico, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Middle District of Florida, the Western District of Washington, the District of New Jersey, and the Eastern District of New York.
In 2024, three of these companies asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate a group of these cases, telling the Panel that the complaints involved "virtually identical proposed class definitions." The Panel denied the request on October 4, 2024, and the cases have continued separately ever since.
Who we would like to hear from
We are investigating on behalf of a proposed class, and we are looking for people in four categories.
1. If you received prerecorded or automated calls from Lendvia, Better Debt Solutions, Better Tax Relief, Better Rise Capital, Range View Management, One Street Financial, Lendvia Financial, or a caller who identified only a first name and an agent number — particularly if your number was on the National Do Not Call Registry.
2. If you were told that a "Verified Consent" certificate or a video recording exists showing you completing an online form that you did not complete. This is the group we are most interested in reaching. If a company responded to your complaint by sending you a certificate with an internet address you did not recognize, or a link to a video you had never seen, we would like to speak with you.
3. If the information on such a certificate was wrong — a misspelled name, an email address that is not yours, an incorrect Social Security number or date of birth, or a date on which you know you were somewhere else.
4. If you have worked for any of these companies, or for a lead generator or verification vendor that supplied them, and have knowledge of how consumer telephone numbers were obtained, purchased, appended, or verified.
There is no cost to speak with us, and no obligation. If you received these calls, it may help to gather your phone records, any voicemails, and any correspondence you exchanged with the company before contacting us.
Contact
Javitch Law Office
3 East 3rd Avenue, Suite 200
San Mateo, California 94401
(650) 781-8000
mark@javitchlawoffice.com
Mark L. Javitch, California State Bar No. 323729.
Related Reading
- TCPA Lawyer — Statutory Damages for Illegal Calls and Texts
- Prerecorded Voice Calls Under the TCPA
- How to File a TCPA Lawsuit: Step-by-Step
This article is attorney advertising. It describes allegations contained in publicly filed court documents and rulings issued by federal courts. Allegations are allegations only; no defendant has been found liable, and every defendant is entitled to a defense and to a presumption that the allegations against it are unproven. Nothing here is legal advice, and reading it or contacting our office does not create an attorney-client relationship. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act are subject to a four-year statute of limitations, and other deadlines may apply; if you believe you have a claim, do not delay in seeking counsel. A court has not yet certified any class in James v. Ghanbari, and there is no assurance that a class will be certified or that any recovery will be obtained.
FAQ
What is a "Verified Consent" certificate?
It's a document generated by a third-party vendor that purports to prove a consumer visited a website and agreed to receive marketing calls — typically including a timestamp, IP address, device details, and a video replay. Four federal courts have refused to treat these certificates as conclusive proof of consent when consumers dispute them under oath.
Do I have a TCPA claim if the defendant says it has a consent certificate?
Possibly yes. Courts have held that a plaintiff's sworn declaration that they never visited the website and don't recognize the IP address on the certificate is enough to create a genuine factual dispute — meaning the case proceeds and the certificate does not automatically defeat the claim.
What damages are available under the TCPA for prerecorded calls?
The TCPA provides $500 per violation, which a court may increase to $1,500 per call for willful or knowing violations. There is a four-year statute of limitations, so preserving call logs and voicemails quickly matters.