Editor’s Update – April 27, 2026. On September 30, 2025, Judge Kato issued a subsequent order (Dkt. 18) vacating the September 25, 2025 sanction order discussed below. The September 25 sanction order was against Mr. Lane’s client, Andrew Davalos, in the amount of $250 for failure to comply with the court’s service-related orders; it did not require Mr. Lane to pay the penalty for missing the court’s deadlines. Ultimately, no payment was ever required or made because the Court vacated the penalty despite concluding that “Plaintiff fails to establish his failure to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause, dkt. 10 including this Court’s explicit order that he submit a proper request for an EOT, dkt. 12 resulted from any of the grounds listed under FRCP 60(b).” This article has been revised to reflect these facts up front and EIA apologies if the prior version of the article caused any confusion about how Mr. Lane’s conduct led to the court’s order, even if it was the client that would have been obligated to pay the penalty had it not been subsequently vacated.
The Ecommerce Innovation Alliance (EIA) is calling attention to a recent court order regarding sanctions in a “quiet hours” case being litigated by attorney Gerald D. Lane, Jr., the attorney who has pursued more than 350 “quiet hour” cases targeting ecommerce brands nationwide.
Lane’s Client Sanctioned for Failure to Follow Court Order
In the case of Andrew Davalos V. Ecommerce Innovations LLC, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato, a Judge for the Central District of California, issued a Notice and Order on September 25, 2025, sanctioning the Plaintiff $250.00 for failure to comply with court orders. The sanction stemmed from the Plaintiff’s failure to file a Proof of Service indicating timely service on the defendant, Ecommerce Innovations LLC. Despite the Court issuing an Order to Show Cause on August 25, 2025, and subsequently warning the Plaintiff on September 10, 2025, that failure to comply would result in dismissal, the Plaintiff still failed to file a proper request for an extension of time. The court explicitly stated that the Plaintiff was sanctioned “$250.00 due to his failure to comply with Court orders”.
Judge Kenly Kiya Kato released a subsequent order on September 30th stating that “Plaintiff fails to establish his failure to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause, dkt. 10 including this Court’s explicit order that he submit a proper request for an EOT, dkt. 12, resulted from any of the grounds listed under FRCP 60(b). Nonetheless, the Court will VACATE the Order imposing sanctions, (dkt. 16 ). Plaintiff is explicitly warned that future non-compliance with Court orders will result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders.
A Pattern of Frivolous Litigation
The missed deadlines that led to the sanction order highlights the nature of the campaign being waged by Lane, who graduated law school in 2022 and, according to his LinkedIn profile, was first licensed as a lawyer in Florida in April 2023 and then in California in December 2023. It is rare for attorneys who have been licensed for such a short period of time to be named as an attorney of record in any federal litigation so early in the career, much less in hundreds of cases simultaneously and to have earned the dubious distinction of being one of the most prolific filers in the entire country, according to stats published by WebRecon.
Notably, Judges in dozens of other quiet hour cases have also filed Orders to Show Cause, threatening to dismiss cases, after Lane failed to comply with court deadlines or otherwise violated court orders.
Since November 2024, Lane and other junior attorneys at the Law Firm of Jibrael S. Hindi have initiated a staggering 97% of the quiet hour cases or demand letters—totaling more than 350 companies targeted in filed class action litigation or demand letters. The firm’s principal, Mr. Hindi, noticeably does not appear as counsel of record in the cases and thus is not subject to the Show Cause orders that his colleagues continue to rack up.
Mr. Hindi does actively solicit plaintiffs online for these quiet hours cases, misleading consumers by telling them that every text message received after 9 PM is an “unlawful” message that can create a “payday” for them. The firm promises that consumers are entitled to compensation between $500 to $1,500 per text message and repeatedly assures prospects: “we don’t get paid unless you get paid”.
The vast majority of these cases, however, are legally invalid under FCC rules because they are initiated on behalf of individuals who have provided prior consent to receive text messages. This kind of litigation is precisely what undermines the TCPA’s intended purpose and weaponizes the private right of action against law-abiding companies.
The Urgent Need for FCC Intervention
The egregious behavior of this firm, exemplified by the recent court sanction and the filing of hundreds of cookie-cutter lawsuits in an effort to extract settlement payments from companies that have not violated any law, underscores the urgent need for regulatory clarity.
The EIA filed its Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC precisely to address this wave of shakedown litigation. We continue to advocate for the FCC to act swiftly and confirm its long-held view that consumers who provide their prior express consent to receive text messages have no legal basis to sue under the TCPA for messages received outside of the quiet hours created by Commission rule. Granting this relief is a straightforward application of the definition of “telephone solicitation” (found at 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(15)) and would protect the majority of legitimate businesses being subjected to this abusive litigation by giving them the tools they need to fight back.
Editor’s Note: This post was originally published on September 30, 2025 and was first updated on October 1, 2025 to include the following:
Judge Kenly Kiya Kato released a subsequent order on October 1st stating that “Plaintiff fails to establish his failure to comply with the Court’s Order to Show Cause, dkt. 10 including this Court’s explicit order that he submit a proper request for an EOT, dkt. 12, resulted from any of the grounds listed under FRCP 60(b). Nonetheless, the Court will VACATE the Order imposing sanctions, (dkt. 16 ). Plaintiff is explicitly warned that future non-compliance with Court orders will result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders.
