Skip to main content

Nicole V. Ozeran

Associate

[email protected]

+1.310.226.7851

Share:

Nicole’s practice focuses on complex corporate litigation, with an emphasis on consumer fraud, online and telephone marketing, false advertising, and regulatory and statutory compliance issues. Nicole regularly advises clients in all stages of litigation, from pre-litigation counseling and investigation through discovery, dispositive motion practice, trial, and appeals. She has extensive experience successfully taking and defending depositions, arguing motions, and resolving matters through mediation and arbitration.

Nicole’s clients regard her as strategic and creative; they trust her common sense approach to problem-solving and appreciate her professional dedication and zealous advocacy of their interests.

Prior to joining Mintz, Nicole worked at a global law firm where she handled cases from inception to resolution, reaching favorable outcomes for her clients in dozens of matters. Nicole also previously served as a judicial intern for the Honorable M. Hannah Lauck at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Education

  • William and Mary Law School (JD)
  • University of California - San Diego (BA)

Languages

- Russian

Viewpoints

Viewpoint

Monthly TCPA Digest – November 2018

November 19, 2018| Article

This TCPA Digest covers the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic case and provides news from the FCC, including a notice to voice providers that action will be taken if the industry-led call authentication system doesn’t materialize soon.
Viewpoint
Read about recent TCPA cases and FCC comment periods on automatic telephone dialing systems, call blocking technologies, and a proposed emergency use exemption to the TCPA.
Viewpoint
In this issue, we look at industry comments on the FCC’s report on robocalling and efforts to urge the agency to reconsider its reassigned numbers database proposal. In addition, we examine a recent circuit split on what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in the Third and Ninth Circuits and what that means for TCPA defendants. The split follows the D.C. Circuit’s May 2018 decision in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, which set aside the FCC’s “unreasonably expansive interpretation” of what constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system.

This issue provides insurance information for companies facing TCPA lawsuits and identifies the types of policies and provisions that may offer coverage. You will also find an update on the status of the proposed reassigned numbers database as well as information about a new FCC Public Notice, released August 10. Comments on the Public Notice are expected to lay the groundwork for the FCC’s next major action on call blocking and methods to eliminate illegal robocalls.

This issue includes an update on activity at the FCC, specifically the agency’s progress in evaluating comments received in several ongoing TCPA proceedings. In addition, in our Class Action Update, we look at the current understanding of what constitutes an ATDS and why, in the wake of ACA International, it may be more difficult for plaintiffs to demonstrate that the companies they are suing used ATDS devices.

In this issue, we look at recent TCPA-related activity at the FCC, including the agency’s reevaulation of some TCPA rulings as well as a notable fine levied against a robocaller for malicious spoofing. In addition, in our Class Action & Litigation Update, we look at recent district court rulings offering different interpretations of what constitutes an ATDS, and consider where this split between the circuits leaves TCPA defendants.

This month we consider the Ninth Circuit’s pending Crunch ruling and how the decision may affect parties defending TCPA cases. You’ll find the story in our Class Action & Litigation Update. Our Legislative Update offers a quick review of the recent US House and Senate hearings on illegal robocalls. For a roundup of TCPA-related developments at the FCC, please see our Regulatory Update.

Roughly around this time last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), wherein the Court rejected the California Supreme Court’s finding of specific jurisdiction over mass tort claims filed by nonresidents.