Aab, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee. Lee, Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Accordingly, we VACATE the District Court’s judgment and REMAND the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because we determine that LBD’s systems meet both statutory requirements, we conclude that the systems qualify as ATDSs.

The District Court concluded that the dialing systems used by LBD meet only the first of these two statutory requirements and therefore are not ATDSs. § 227(a)(1)(A), and the capacity “to dial such numbers” id. To qualify as an ATDS, a dialing system must have both the capacity “to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator” 47 U.S.C. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Allyne R. Duran appeals from a grant of summary judgment in the U.S. But if LBD did not do so-if it used some non-ATDS technology to send its texts-then Duran has no case. If LBD did do so, then it is liable to Duran under the TCPA. Of course, only one party can be right: either LBD used ATDSs, or it did not.

LBD acknowledges that it sent the messages, but counters that its actions were not prohibited by the TCPA because the texting platforms used to send them were not, in fact, ATDSs. (“LBD”), all sent using Automatic Telephone Dialing Systems (“ATDSs”) in a way prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). Plaintiff-Appellant Radames Duran (“Duran”) claims that he received, over the course of more than a year-and-a-half, hundreds of unsolicited text messages from Defendant-Appellant La Boom Disco, Inc. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York SUBMITTED: DECEMDECIDED: APBefore: CABRANES and LOHIER, Circuit Judges, and REISS, District Judge.* * Judge Christina Reiss, of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 19-600-cv RADAMES DURAN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit AUGUST TERM 2019 No.

La boom nightclub age limit