Trupia v. Bob Moore Enterprises

── Trupia v. Bob Moore Enterprises ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6130 Document: 26 Date Filed: 05/29/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 29, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ANTHONY TRUPIA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-6130 (D.C. No. 5:25-CV-00568-HE) BOB MOORE ENTERPRISES, (W.D. Okla.) L.L.C., Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, MORITZ, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Anthony Trupia, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, remanding his state-law claims, and denying his pending motions. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has * determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-6130 Document: 26 Date Filed: 05/29/2026 Page: 2 I Trupia filed an action in Oklahoma state court, alleging as follows. After he arranged for defendant Bob Moore Enterprises, L.L.C. (BME), to service his vehicle, BME enrolled him “in a marketing campaign involving automated text messages” without his “prior express written consent.” R. at 10. BME then sent two text messages to Trupia’s cell phone several months apart informing him that it was time for another service visit: “Hello Anthony, this is Amber at [BME]. Our records indicate that it’s already time for your next service visit. Can I help you schedule an appointment? Opt-out reply STOP.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Trupia alleged that these “text messages were sent using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or prerecorded messages, as evidenced by their generic, automated nature and the identification of ‘Amber’ as an AI virtual assistant by a [BME] employee.” Id. Based on these allegations, Trupia asserted four TCPA claims, four claims under Oklahoma’s Telephone Solicitation Act of 2022, Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 775c.1–775c.6, and a claim under Oklahoma common law for intrusion upon seclusion. He sought damages, injunctive relief, and an order that BME pay fines to the United States and the State of Oklahoma. BME removed the action to federal district court and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil 2  Appellate Case: 25-6130 Document: 26 Date Filed: 05/29/2026 Page: 3 Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be gran