Texas TCPA Case Leads to $23,405 Default Judgment

A federal judge in Texas has entered a $23,405 default judgment against Cloud City Commercial Capital, LLC, doing business as Cloud Funding, and Rodney Salazar, following a magistrate judge’s recommendation in a lawsuit involving alleged violations of federal and Texas telemarketing laws.

In Callier v. Cloud City Commercial Capital, LLC, pro se plaintiff Brandon Callier alleged that the company made four solicitation calls to his personal cell phone despite the number being listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The defendants did not respond to the lawsuit, resulting in an entry of default and Callier’s subsequent request for $46,555 in damages.

Magistrate Judge Anne T. Berton recommended granting the motion for default judgment in part, awarding damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Texas law while rejecting several additional claims for compensation.

Four Calls Formed the Basis of the Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Callier registered his personal cell phone number with the National Do Not Call Registry in 2007.

He alleged that Cloud City called him four times between July 26 and August 29, 2025, to offer consumer loans. Two of the calls allegedly occurred before 9:00 a.m.

Callier also claimed that the final call took place nine days after he emailed the company requesting that it stop contacting him.

He brought claims against both Cloud City and Salazar under the TCPA and several provisions of the Texas Business and Commerce Code.

The defendants were served in October 2025 but did not answer the complaint. The clerk later entered default, and Callier moved for a default judgment.

Court Awards $3,000 Under the TCPA

For Callier’s federal Do Not Call claim, the court determined that he had sufficiently alleged that the cell phone was used for residential purposes, allowing the claim to proceed under the TCPA’s private right of action for certain Do Not Call violations.

The final judgment totaled $23,405.

The damages reflected the four alleged calls, including enhanced damages associated with the final call. Callier alleged that the last solicitation occurred after Cloud City had already received his request not to be contacted, supporting a finding that the violation was knowing and willful.

Texas Registration Violation Adds $20,000

The largest portion of the recommended judgment came from Texas law.

Section 302.101 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code generally requires certain telephone solicitors to obtain a registration certificate before making solicitations in the state.

The court determined that Cloud City did not have the required certificate and recommended a $5,000 penalty for each of the four calls.

That brought the Texas statutory damages award to $20,000.

Combined with the $3,000 TCPA award and $405 in filing costs, the recommended judgment reached $23,405.

Court Rejects Additional Damages

Callier did not receive the full $46,555 he requested.

The court declined to award separate damages under another provision of Texas law for conduct already compensated through the TCPA claims. Awarding additional damages for the same calls would have resulted in an improper double recovery.

The court also rejected Callier’s request for damages based on allegations that two calls occurred before 9:00 a.m.

Although Texas law restricts certain solicitation calls during those hours, the applicable private remedy was tied to amounts a consumer had actually paid the seller. Because Callier had not purchased goods or services or paid Cloud City, the court found that additional damages were unavailable under that provision.

Company Owner Also Faces Personal Liability

The recommendation is particularly significant because liability was not limited to the company.

The court found that Callier had sufficiently alleged Salazar’s personal involvement in the challenged conduct to support joint and several liability.

Callier alleged that Salazar was Cloud City’s sole officer and that he directed the solicitors, approved calling scripts, and controlled the company’s operations.

Those allegations supported application of the personal participation theory, under which a corporate officer may face individual liability when the officer directly participates in or authorizes unlawful conduct.

Default Can Carry Consequences Beyond the Company

The case illustrates how failing to respond to a telemarketing lawsuit can significantly increase legal exposure. Once defendants default, adequately pleaded allegations may establish liability even though the plaintiff must still demonstrate that the requested damages are legally available.

It also highlights a separate risk for business owners and corporate officers. Where a complaint sufficiently alleges direct involvement in calling practices, potential liability may extend beyond the corporate entity itself.

For companies engaged in telephone solicitation, the decision reinforces the importance of maintaining Do Not Call procedures, reviewing state registration requirements, responding promptly to consumer opt-out requests, and addressing litigation before a default places both corporate and individual defendants at greater risk.