Keep up with the latest developments and legal issues in the telecommunications and emerging technology sectors, with exclusive access to a comprehensive collection of telecommunications law news,...
The U.S. Supreme Court will review an Eleventh Circuit ruling that a plaintiff provided the court with no reason to reconsider its precedent holding that, since Congress granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over such private actions brought under the Act.
In his motion asking the court to reconsider the court's binding precedent, established in Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc.,136 F.3d 1287, 1288-89 (11th Cir. 1998), modified, 140 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 1998), Marcus D. Mims pointed to two Supreme Court cases and one Seventh Circuit case for support. The Eleventh Circuit, however, was not persuaded because neither Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g, 545 U.S. 308 (2005), nor Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U.S. 691 (2003), considered the TCPA, and neither explicitly or implicitly overrules the precedent at issue. (See U.S. v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1255.)
The Eleventh Circuit also explained that the Seventh Circuit's decision in Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005), does not overturn its precedent. (See Kaley, 579 F.3d at 1255.) Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit held, the district court “properly dismissed Mims' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” In his successful petition for certiorari, Mims posed the following question: Did Congress divest the federal district courts of their federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 over private actions brought under the TCPA? (Mims v. Arrow Financial Services LLC, U.S., No. 10-1195, cert. granted, 6/27/11).
Counsel for plaintiff were Deepak Gupta and Scott L. Nelson, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, and Donald Yarbrough, Law Office of Donald A. Yarbrough, Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Counsel for defendant was Barbara A. Sinsley, Barron, Newburger & Sinsley, PLLC, Austin, Texas.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)