Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Issue: Cases involving a private right of action to a state court plaintiff seeking damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991.
| Area of Law: | Communications & Media Law, Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Private right of action; Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991; Subject matter jurisdiction over private actions |
| Jurisdiction: | Federal |
| Cited Cases: | 136 F.3d 1287; 478 U.S. 804; 679 N.Y.S.2d 881; 859 F. Supp. 180; 156 F.3d 513; 962 F. Supp. 1162; 698 N.Y.S.2d 799; 140 F.3d 898; 177 U.S. 505 |
| Cited Statutes: | 47 U.S.C. § 227, § 227(b)(3), § 227(f)(2); 47 U.S.C. §§ 214(c), 407, 415(f), 553(c)(1), 555(a), 605(e)(3)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570c(a) (1991); New York Gen. Bus. Law § 396-aa(1) (1996); S.C. Code § 15-75-50(A), § 15-75-50(B), § 15-75-51; Va. Code § 8.01-40.2 (1992); W. Va. Code § 46A-2-139(a), § 46A-2-139(b), (c) (1999); Fla. Stat. § 365.1657(1), § 365.1657(2); Ga. Code § 46-5-25(b), 46-5-25(c), § 46-5-25(d), § 46-5-25(e); Md. Code, Com. Law § 14-1313(a)(3), (b), § 14-1313(c)(1); La. Rev. Stat. § 1746 (Supp. 2000), § 1747(B), § 1747(C), § 1747(A); Mich. Comp. Laws. § 445.1772 (1999), §§ 445.1773, .1774, .1775, § 445.1776; Minn. Stat. § 325E.395, subd. 1(a) (1998); Tenn. Code § 47-18-2501(a) (Supp. 1999); Texas Bus. & Com. Code § 35.47(b), (c), (d) (Supp. 2000); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17538.4(a)(1), (b) (2000); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-702(1)(b)(I) (Supp. 1999); Idaho Code § 48-1003(1)(i) (Supp. 1999); 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26-3(b) (1993); Maine Rev. Stat |
| Date: | 07/01/2000 |
To date, six federal circuit courts have reached the “somewhat unusual conclusion that . . . states have been given, subject to their consent, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over private actions authorized by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 [TCPA], 47 U.S.C. § 227 . . . .” International Science & Tech. Inst., Inc. v. Inacom Communications, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146, 1150 (4th Cir. 1997); see also Murphy v. Lanier, 204 F.3d 911, 915 (9th Cir. 2000) (joining the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits in concluding that state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the cause of action created by a federal statute), aff’g 997 F. Supp. 1348, 1352 (S.D. Cal. 1998) (holding that there is no federal question jurisdiction over private actions brought under 47 U.S.C. § 227); Erienet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, Inc., 156 F.3d 513, 520 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding that the TCPA does not provide for private suits in federal court); Foxhall Realty Law Offices, Inc. v. Telecommunications Premium Servs., Ltd., 156 F.3d 432, 434 (2d Cir. 1998) (“Like the Fourth Circuit and the other circuit courts . . . before us, we too reach ‘the somewhat unusual conclusion that state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a cause of action created by’ a federal statute, the TCPA”), aff’g 975 F. Supp. 329, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss TCPA claim brought in federal district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, 136 F.3d 1287, 1287-88 (11th Cir. 1998) (concluding that Congress […]