American Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Lake City Industrial Products, Inc.
757 F.3d 540
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Lake City and Meeder allegedly sent an unsolicited Lake City advertisement to American Copper via fax in February 2006.
- American Copper sued under the TCPA and moved for class certification, which the district court granted.
- Lake City appealed, challenging standing of class members, ascertainability, and Michigan class-action Rule 3.501(A)(5) applicability.
- The district court later granted American Copper’s summary-judgment motion, and the amended judgment followed.
- The Sixth Circuit reviews class-certification abuse of discretion and summary judgment de novo; it analyzes TCPA standing, ascertainability, and federal versus state procedural rules.
- Lake City argued MCR 3.501(A)(5) should apply to TCPA class actions; the court rejected this, applying federal rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of class members under TCPA | American Copper contends class members have TCPA standing. | Lake City argues only owners/recipients with standing may sue, citing Machesney. | TCPA standing for class members upheld; Machesney rejected. |
| Objectively ascertainable class | Class defined by objective fax-log data; ascertainable via logs. | Lake City forfeited this argument; challenged class definition on standing grounds. | Court affirms ascertainability; not reversible error based on record. |
| MCR 3.501(A)(5) applicability to TCPA class actions | Federal rules apply in federal court; Michigan rule not controlling. | MCR 3.501(A)(5) should prohibit TCPA class actions in Michigan state practice. | MCR 3.501(A)(5) does not apply; federal rules govern in federal court. |
| Fed. rules vs. state procedure in TCPA | Congress intended federal procedure; states should not override. | State procedure may apply under some circumstances (Shady Grove-like concerns). | Federal rules apply; Shady Grove does not require state procedure here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 2533 (2012) (federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (Rule 23 vs. state procedural rule conflict; federal Rule valid)
- Machesney v. Lar-Bev of Howell, Inc., 292 F.R.D. 412 (E.D. Mich. 2013) (standing under TCPA limited to fax-machine owner in district court ruling)
- In re Nguyen, 211 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 2000) (rare exception allowing state procedure in federal proceedings)
- Ira Holtzman, C.P.A. v. Turza, 728 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2013) (recipient costs of unsolicited faxes matter; time wasted is costs)
- Roberts v. Hamer, 655 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2011) (plain language of statutes interpreted; avoid speculative readings)
- American Blast Fax, Inc. v. Nixon, 323 F.3d 649 (8th Cir. 2003) (TCPA costs to recipients; unsolicited faxes burden networks)
- Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co., 704 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2013) (fax-blasting context and related background)