Pete Kennedy, who represented the plaintiff, Dunham & Jones, said the firm got its number back a long time ago.
“That was the whole point of filing the suit,” says Kennedy, a shareholder in Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody in Austin. Initially, the firm was concerned someone wanted its number to “siphon off some of our clients,” but Kennedy notes, “Certainly the woman didn’t turn out to be trying to run some competitive business against us.”
He refers further comment to Dunham & Jones’ founder Paul Dunham, who didn’t return a telephone call seeking comment.
“The Plaintiff no longer desires to pursue its claims against Defendant at this time,” says the July 18 Plaintiffs Notice of Non-suit Without Prejudice in Dunham & Jones PC, f/k/a The Dunham Law Firm v. Theresa Palmer.
In its Feb. 16, 2012, original petition, filed in the 353rd District Court in Austin, the firm alleged it noticed it wasn't receiving incoming client calls on Feb. 15, 2012. It called its voice-over Internet protocol (VoIP) provider, Vonage America Inc., and learned its phone number was transferred or “ported” to magicJack, another VoIP provider. The firm alleged it called magicJack and learned the phone number was transferred on a request “submitted under the name Theresa Palmer.”
The firm sued her for tortious interference with a contract and prospective business relations, fraud and violation of the Texas Breach of Computer Security Act. [See “Fort Worth 411; Firm Alleges Number-Napping Left Clients Incommunicado,” Texas Lawyer, Feb. 27, 2012, page 1.]
Public records listed two telephone numbers that match Theresa Palmer’s Azle, Texas address, which was listed on the non-suit’s certificate of service. A man who answered a telephone call to the first number says Palmer no longer works there. A magicJack voicemail message answered a call to the second number, but no one returned a message seeking comment.
-- Angela Morris