Court accepts these allegations as true. Accordingly, the Court rejects the argument that Father has failed to state a claim based on application of the Consent Exception. Instead, this is a question that must be addressed at summary judgment or trial. In addition, at the time of the interceptions, Mother and Father were operating under a Joint Custody Plan that required the parents to share decisions and to share physical custody. The parties did not cite case law addressing what effect, if any, such a Joint Custody Plan has on one parent’s ability to provide vicarious consent for purposes of the Consent Exception. However, the fact that Mother and Father shared custody of Minor Children does not seem to weigh in favor of a dismissal premised on the Consent Excep 397 (W.D.Okla.1978) (<HOLDING>). However, Attorney and Law Firm raised the
holding that because interception of conversation was lawful court could not find title iii violation based on disclosure of the conversation holding that section 1983 actions based on violation of the fourth amendment may not rest on violation of state law holding that employers occasional reference to plaintiff as dago and to other italianamerican employees as the mafia constituted isolated or sporadic derogatory ethnic comments as part of casual conversation that did not rise to level necessary for violation of title vii holding that employers occasional reference to plaintiff as dago and other italianamerican employees as the mafia constituted isolated or sporadic derogatory ethnic comments as part of casual conversation that did not rise to level necessary for violation of title vii holding that the denial of a motion to find a violation of the automatic stay was a final order