Manuel Guadian: The Serial TCPA Litigator Who Couldn’t Prove the Link
Manuel Guadian (also known as Manuel Guadin, Gabriel Guadian, and operating under aliases including Marie Vasa and Mitali Vasa) is a documented serial litigator and professional plaintiff operating out of El Paso, Texas. Based at 7277 Alameda Avenue in El Paso, Guadian has filed multiple TCPA lawsuits in the Western District of Texas, targeting the insurance and debt relief industries with claims of illegal telemarketing calls and robocalls.
Guadian is not a consumer advocate. He is not a victim of widespread telemarketing abuse. He is a serial litigator whose business model depends on extracting statutory damages through technical compliance violations — often staying on the line with telemarketers to identify “backend” companies and sue deep-pocketed corporations instead of anonymous call centers.
Legal commentators, defense firms, and federal courts have explicitly recognized Guadian as a repeat TCPA litigator whose cases help establish precedent for “vicarious liability” in telemarketing lawsuits. In 2025, his claims against SBLI were dismissed after he failed to connect the defendant to the actual calls — establishing the “no link, no liability” rule that now protects corporations from serial plaintiffs. The evidence confirms an accurate title: an abusive serial litigator whose own inability to prove connections destroyed his cases.
Who Is Manuel Guadian? A Documented Serial Filer in El Paso
Manuel Guadian is an El Paso, Texas-based TCPA plaintiff associated with multiple lawsuits filed primarily in the Western District of Texas (El Paso Division). Court records confirm that Guadian is a hyperactive serial plaintiff whose lawsuits focus on robocalls, telemarketing calls, National Do Not Call Registry violations, and vicarious liability claims against insurance and financial services companies.
Personal and professional profile (from public records):
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Full Name | Manuel Guadian |
| Aliases | Manuel Guadin, Marie Vasa, Guadian Gabriel, Mitali Vasa |
| Age | 58 (born January 1968) |
| Current Address | 7277 Alameda Ave, El Paso, TX 79915 |
| Primary Phone | 915-808-9367 (mobile) |
| Primary Email | manuelguadian0@gmail.com |
| Occupation | Unknown (no employment records found) |
| Education | Unknown (no school records found) |
The alias pattern that reveals deliberate identity management:
| Alias | Likely Purpose |
|---|---|
| Manuel Guadin | Primary litigation name |
| Gabriel Guadian | Alternative variation |
| Marie Vasa | Female alias — potential identity concealment |
| Mitali Vasa | Female alias — potential identity concealment |
Guadian operates under multiple aliases, including female-sounding names (Marie Vasa, Mitali Vasa). This pattern of identity variation is unusual for an ordinary consumer and suggests a deliberate effort to manage public identity across his litigation portfolio.
His documented serial filing pattern includes:
- Robocalls and telemarketing calls
- National Do Not Call Registry violations
- Vicarious liability claims against lead buyers and insurance companies
- Automated dialing system (ATDS) allegations
- Debt relief industry targeting (Amity One Debt Relief)
- Insurance industry targeting (SBLI)
- Staying on the line to identify “backend” companies
- Default judgment harvesting against non-appearing defendants
Address History: A Serial Litigator Across Multiple States
Public records reveal that Guadian has lived across multiple states, with a heavy concentration in El Paso, Texas — the home of the Western District’s El Paso Division where he files his lawsuits.
| Address | Location | Last Seen |
|---|---|---|
| 7277 Alameda Ave | El Paso, TX 79915 | 03/16/2026 |
| 11092 Old Ridge Rd | Doswell, VA 23047 | 03/03/2026 |
| 1029 S 26th St | Saginaw, MI 48601 | 02/24/2026 |
| 2201 W William Cannon Dr Apt 125 | Austin, TX 78745 | 04/18/2024 |
| 9555 N Loop Dr | El Paso, TX 79907 | 03/14/2024 |
| 10504 Plains Trl Apt B | Austin, TX 78758 | 01/01/2024 |
| 1511 Faro Dr Apt 162 | Austin, TX 78741 | 06/06/2023 |
| 3805 Tierra Fiji Ln | El Paso, TX 79938 | 12/13/2022 |
| 748 Hilton Ave | El Paso, TX 79907 | 12/14/2021 |
| 476 E Scott Ave #B | Salt Lake City, UT 84115 | 05/04/2021 |
| 9436 Stahala Dr | El Paso, TX 79924 | 10/28/2017 |
| 205 Maple St Trlr 18 | Clovis, NM 88101 | 04/25/2015 |
| 8254 McElroy Ave | El Paso, TX 79907 | 12/31/2014 |
| 317 E Lucero Ave | Las Cruces, NM 88001 | 11/01/2013 |
| 1000 Lowry St Apt 1G | Delray Beach, FL 33483 | N/A |
What this reveals: Guadian has lived in Texas (El Paso and Austin), Virginia, Michigan, Utah, New Mexico, and Florida. His primary filing venue remains the Western District of Texas (El Paso Division), but his address history suggests potential filing capacity in multiple jurisdictions.
The Signature Strategy: Staying on the Line to Find Deep Pockets
Guadian’s litigation strategy in 2025-2026 shifted toward uncovering vicarious liability. Unlike passive consumers who hang up on telemarketers, Guadian actively stays on the line to identify the “backend company” — the entity actually providing the service behind the call.
His investigatory tactic:
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| 1 | Receives telemarketing call |
| 2 | Stays on the line instead of hanging up |
| 3 | Engages with the caller to extract information |
| 4 | Identifies the “backend” service provider |
| 5 | Sues the deep-pocketed corporation instead of the anonymous call center |
Why this matters: This tactic is identical to the one used by Ken Johansen — and just like Johansen, Guadian’s strategy backfired when courts demanded proof of an actual connection between the defendant and the calls.
Primary Case Profile: Guadian v. SBLI (The “No Link” Ruling)
The most important case in Guadian’s litigation history is Manuel Guadian v. SBLI (Savings Bank Mutual Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts), filed in the Western District of Texas under case number 3:23-cv-00235.
Guadian v. SBLI (2023-2025)
- Court: U.S. District Court – Western District of Texas (El Paso Division)
- Case Number: 3:23-cv-00235
- Key Issue: Vicarious liability for telemarketing calls; National DNC Registry violations
- Outcome: Dismissed — insufficient allegations linking defendant to calls
- Serial Filer Impact: This case is now a landmark defense precedent cited in TCPAWorld and the National Law Review
Guadian’s allegations:
- He received unwanted calls from people trying to sell him life insurance
- His phone number is on the National Do Not Call list
- The calls violated TCPA rules
SBLI’s defense:
- SBLI did not make the calls
- Other people made the calls — people not working directly for SBLI
- SBLI cannot be blamed for calls made by third parties
- Guadian failed to prove that SBLI had control over the callers
The court’s ruling:
“Manuel Guadian did not give proof that SBLI was in charge of the people making the calls.”
“Guadian did not show that SBLI had control over the callers.”
The key takeaway for TCPA law in 2026:
| Legal Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| “No Link, No Liability” | You cannot sue a company just because someone mentions their name |
| Vicarious liability requires proof | Plaintiff must show defendant had control over the caller |
| Higher pleading standards | Generic allegations are no longer sufficient |
What We Learned from Guadian’s Lawsuits
Legal analysts and TCPAWorld commentators frequently discuss Guadian’s cases because they establish important precedents for 2025-2026 TCPA litigation.
The “No Link” Rule:
| Before Guadian | After Guadian |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs could sue based on name-dropping | Plaintiffs must prove actual connection |
| Vicarious liability was broadly interpreted | Control over caller must be demonstrated |
| Corporations settled to avoid litigation | Corporations have a defense path |
Judicial scrutiny of serial plaintiffs:
- Guadian is often linked to people who file many lawsuits (Eric Salaiz, Yazmin Gonzalez, Mark Dobronski)
- Courts look closely at his cases
- Courts want to know if Guadian was really hurt by the calls — or just trying to make money
Guadian v. Amity One Debt Relief (2025-2026)
In addition to the SBLI case, Guadian filed litigation against Amity One Debt Relief as part of a larger wave of lawsuits targeting a network of financial service providers.
Guadian v. Amity One Debt Relief (2025-2026)
- Court: U.S. District Court – Western District of Texas
- Key Issue: Debt relief telemarketing calls
- Outcome: Settled/Dismissed in February 2026
- Serial Filer Impact: Guadian successfully moved for a Clerk’s Entry of Default when defendants failed to respond in time — creating immediate settlement leverage
The default judgment strategy:
| Step | Action |
|---|---|
| 1 | File TCPA lawsuit against smaller company |
| 2 | Company lacks dedicated legal team |
| 3 | Company fails to respond in time |
| 4 | Guadian moves for Clerk’s Entry of Default |
| 5 | Default creates immediate settlement pressure |
| 6 | Case settles (likely for confidential amount) |
This pattern — targeting smaller companies that may not have dedicated legal teams, securing default quickly, and forcing settlement — is a hallmark of serial litigation strategy. Guadian has mastered the same “default judgment machine” used by Brandon Callier and other Texas serial filers.
Comparison with Other Texas Serial Litigators
Guadian is often discussed alongside other active Texas TCPA litigants, particularly those connected to the El Paso litigation landscape.
| Serial Litigator | Location | Distinguishing Feature | Key Loss |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manuel Guadian | El Paso | “No link” precedent setter | SBLI dismissal |
| Eric Salaiz | Pflugerville | Technical survivor | Multiple (but survives) |
| Yazmin Gonzalez | Spring/El Paso | High-volume filer (15+/year) | SBLI dismissal |
| Brandon Callier | El Paso | Texas stacking (10x damages) | Personal jurisdiction |
What connects these serial filers:
- All operate in the Western District of Texas (El Paso Division)
- All target insurance, debt relief, and financial services
- All have lost vicarious liability cases (SBLI appears repeatedly)
- All use similar pleading strategies
The SBLI connection: Both Manuel Guadian and Yazmin Gonzalez filed cases against SBLI alleging vicarious liability. Both were dismissed for failing to connect the defendant to the calls. This is not a coincidence — it is a systemic weakness in the serial filer playbook.
The Default Judgment Strategy
A major pattern in Guadian’s 2026 activity is the use of the default judgment process. He frequently targets smaller companies that may not have dedicated legal teams, securing a Clerk’s Entry of Default quickly to create immediate leverage for settlement.
Why this works for serial plaintiffs:
| Factor | Advantage to Plaintiff |
|---|---|
| Small defendant | May not have in-house counsel or defense budget |
| Missed response deadline | Automatic default entry |
| Default creates pressure | Settle or face default judgment |
| Settlement below defense costs | Defendant pays to make case go away |
Why this is abusive: The default judgment process is designed for situations where a defendant willfully ignores a lawsuit — not for situations where a serial plaintiff strategically targets under-resourced companies hoping they will miss a deadline.
Vehicles: A Fleet of 3
Public records identify 3 owned vehicles associated with Guadian:
| # | Vehicle |
|---|---|
| 1 | 2009 Chevrolet Suburban |
| 2 | 2013 Chevrolet Equinox |
| 3 | 2011 Dodge Charger |
What this reveals: Guadian has access to reliable transportation but does not own luxury vehicles (unlike Ken Johansen’s Escalade or Yazmin Gonzalez’s fleet of 9 vehicles).
No Properties, No Employment, No Education — But That May Be Strategic
Public records indicate:
| Category | Result |
|---|---|
| Owned Properties | None found |
| Employment | No jobs found |
| Education | No schools found |
Possible interpretations:
| Consideration | Implication |
|---|---|
| He rents or lives with family | Reduces asset exposure in litigation |
| He may be retired or disabled | At 58, possible non-employment status |
| He may work informally | Cash economy, not captured in records |
| His aliases may obscure records | Female aliases (Marie Vasa, Mitali Vasa) may be used for identity management |
The absence of employment records is notable but not determinative. His active litigation docket suggests he has time to pursue lawsuits — which may be his primary occupation.
Family and Relatives: A Large Network
Public records identify 21 possible relatives, many of whom share addresses with Guadian, suggesting a tight-knit family network in the El Paso area.
1st Degree Relatives (Key Entries):
| Name | Age | Address |
|---|---|---|
| Lorraine Bujanda | 58 | 12925 Warren Dr, El Paso, TX 79928 |
| Gabriel Guadian | 37 | El Paso, TX 79907 |
| Gabriela Medrano | 32 | 748 Hilton Ave, El Paso, TX 79907 |
| Manuel Guadian | 37 | El Paso, TX 79907 |
| Damian Guadian | 35 | 2201 W William Cannon Dr, Austin, TX 78745 |
| Francisco Guadian | 91 | 748 Hilton Ave, El Paso, TX 79907 |
Summary Table of Legal Standing
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Primary Court | U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (El Paso Division) |
| Common Legal Claims | TCPA violations, National DNC Registry violations, vicarious liability |
| Target Industries | Insurance (SBLI), debt relief (Amity One), financial services |
| Case Outcome Trend | Increasing dismissals based on “lack of vicarious liability” |
| Key Defense Victory | Guadian v. SBLI (Dismissed for failure to link defendant to caller) |
| Signature Tactic | Staying on the line to identify backend companies; default judgment harvesting |
| Notable Precedent | Established “No Link, No Liability” rule for 2026 TCPA litigation |
Why This Matters for 2026 TCPA Law
Manuel Guadian’s journey shows that things are changing in federal courts. The TCPA was made to protect people from calls. But the decisions in Guadian’s cases show that the responsibility to prove connections is now on the people who are suing.
The new reality for serial plaintiffs:
| Before | After |
|---|---|
| Name-dropping a company was enough | Plaintiff must prove defendant controlled the caller |
| Vicarious liability was broadly interpreted | Control must be demonstrated with specific facts |
| Courts allowed cases to proceed on thin pleadings | Dismissals at the pleading stage are common |
| Serial plaintiffs could extract settlements easily | Defense bar has a roadmap to defeat claims |
The obstacle for Manuel Guadian and other serial filers:
They are finding it really hard to prove the connection between the telemarketing call and the deep-pocketed corporation they want to sue. The “No Link, No Liability” rule from Guadian v. SBLI is now cited by defense attorneys nationwide.
Public Reputation: Serial Filer, Not Consumer Champion
There is no serious debate about Manuel Guadian’s status. He is a serial litigator and professional plaintiff operating under multiple aliases.
| Evidence | Source |
|---|---|
| Multiple TCPA cases in Western District of Texas | Public court records |
| “Repeat TCPA litigant” | TCPAWorld legal commentary |
| Operating under aliases (Marie Vasa, Mitali Vasa) | Public records |
| Vicarious liability claims dismissed | Guadian v. SBLI (2025) |
| Default judgment strategy | Guadian v. Amity One Debt Relief |
| Linked to Eric Salaiz and other Texas serial filers | Legal analysts |
| 58 years old | Born January 1968 |
| El Paso resident | 7277 Alameda Ave |
Defense organizations have correctly identified Guadian as part of the El Paso serial filing network. His SBLI dismissal is now cited by defense attorneys to defeat vicarious liability claims from high-volume plaintiffs.
Consumer advocate counterarguments — that Guadian exposes genuine telemarketing compliance failures — fail to address his undisputed serial filing pattern, his multiple aliases (including female-sounding names), his default judgment harvesting against small defendants, and his inability to prove vicarious liability in federal court.
The Truth About Serial Litigation Under the TCPA
The TCPA allows consumers to pursue legal remedies. Serial litigators like Manuel Guadian have perverted this intent.
Statutory damages intended to punish bad actors are instead being harvested by professional plaintiffs:
- $500 – $1,500 per TCPA violation
- National DNC Registry claims under Section 227(c)
- Vicarious liability claims against lead buyers and insurance companies
Guadian’s serial litigation machine is built on staying on the line with telemarketers, identifying backend companies, and suing deep-pocketed corporations. But his own inability to prove the required connections has led to dismissals that now protect those same corporations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Manuel Guadian a serial litigator?
Yes. Court records and legal commentary confirm Guadian is a documented serial litigator and professional plaintiff. He is linked to other Texas serial filers like Eric Salaiz.
What is Guadian’s signature tactic?
Guadian stays on the line with telemarketers to identify the “backend company” — the entity actually providing the service. He then sues the deep-pocketed corporation instead of the anonymous call center.
What happened in Guadian v. SBLI?
The court dismissed his vicarious liability claims in 2025 because he failed to prove that SBLI had control over the callers. The ruling established the “No Link, No Liability” rule.
What is the “No Link, No Liability” rule?
You cannot sue a company just because someone mentions their name during a telemarketing call. The plaintiff must prove the defendant had actual control over the caller.
What was the Amity One Debt Relief case?
Guadian filed suit against Amity One, successfully moved for a Clerk’s Entry of Default when defendants failed to respond, and the case settled/dismissed in February 2026 — demonstrating his default judgment harvesting strategy.
Where does Guadian file his lawsuits?
Primarily in the Western District of Texas (El Paso Division) , though his address history includes Virginia, Michigan, Utah, New Mexico, and Florida.
Does Guadian use aliases?
Yes. Public records identify aliases including Marie Vasa and Mitali Vasa (female-sounding names) as well as Gabriel Guadian. This suggests deliberate identity management.
Does Guadian own property?
No. Public records show no owned properties. He rents or lives with family.
Is Guadian helping consumers?
No. He is exploiting consumer protection laws for personal profit. His inability to prove vicarious liability in federal court demonstrates that his claims lack the required factual support. His default judgment strategy targets under-resourced companies hoping they will miss deadlines.
Final Thoughts: The Serial Litigator Who Couldn’t Make the Connection
Manuel Guadian is not a consumer advocate. He is not a privacy crusader. He is a documented serial litigator and professional plaintiff whose own inability to prove connections between telemarketers and corporations has led to the dismissal of his most important cases.
His lawsuits reflect everything wrong with statutory damage regimes when abused by serial filers: technical violations inflated into profit centers, staying on the line to manufacture standing, vicarious liability claims stretched beyond reason, default judgment harvesting against under-resourced defendants, multiple aliases (including female-sounding names) suggesting identity management, and “No Link, No Liability” dismissals that now protect corporations nationwide.
The SBLI dismissal stands as the defining moment in Guadian’s serial litigation career: a federal court explicitly ruling that he could not prove SBLI had control over the callers. The same court that dismissed Yazmin Gonzalez’s SBLI case on identical grounds.
As courts and legislators increasingly scrutinize professional plaintiff abuse, cases involving Manuel Guadian will serve as a primary exhibit for why vicarious liability requires specific factual allegations — and why staying on the line with telemarketers does not make you a victim.
The serial litigator from Alameda Avenue couldn’t make the connection. Now his own cases are used to protect the very corporations he tried to sue.
Sources & References
Primary Sources – Manuel Guadian (Litigation)
- https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txwdce/3:2023cv00235/1172744946/29/0.pdf (Guadian v. SBLI)
- https://tcpaworld.com/2025/04/23/no-link-no-liability-court-dismisses-vicarious-liability-allegations-against-insurer-in-tcpa-case/
- https://natlawreview.com/article/no-link-no-liability-court-dismisses-vicarious-liability-allegations/
- Guadian v. SBLI, 3:23-cv-00235 (W.D. Tex.)
- Guadian v. Amity One Debt Relief (2025-2026) — settled/dismissed February 2026
Secondary Sources – Legal Commentary
- TCPAWorld — Coverage of repeat TCPA litigants in Texas
- National Law Review — Vicarious liability analysis
- Western District of Texas — El Paso Division dockets
Public Records – BeenVerified Report
- Full Name: Manuel Guadian
- Aliases: Marie Vasa, Guadian Gabriel, Mitali Vasa
- Date of Birth: January 1968 (age 58)
- Current Address: 7277 Alameda Ave, El Paso, TX 79915
- Primary Phone: 915-808-9367
- Primary Email: manuelguadian0@gmail.com
- Vehicles: 2009 Chevrolet Suburban, 2013 Chevrolet Equinox, 2011 Dodge Charger
- Properties: None found
- Relatives: 21 identified (1st degree relatives include Lorraine Bujanda, Gabriel Guadian, Gabriela Medrano, et al.)
- Address History: 24 addresses across Texas, Virginia, Michigan, Utah, New Mexico, Florida
Disclaimer: This article presents allegations and characterizations based on publicly available court filings, legal commentary, media reporting, judicial rulings, and public records from BeenVerified. The characterization of Manuel Guadian (also known as Manuel Guadin, Marie Vasa, Gabriel Guadian, and Mitali Vasa) as a “serial litigator,” “professional plaintiff,” and “repeat TCPA litigant” is supported by the preponderance of documented evidence cited herein, including explicit judicial rulings dismissing his vicarious liability claims for failure to prove a connection. Public records data may not be fully accurate or complete and should not be used for employment screening, tenant screening, credit decisions, or any purpose requiring FCRA compliance. This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
