Bailey v. Domino's Pizza, LLC
867 F. Supp. 2d 835
E.D. La.2012Background
- TCPA private action by Bailey against Domino’s Pizza LLC for unsolicited text messages in Louisiana; putative class limited to Louisiana residents within last four years.
- Bailey alleged violations of TCPA and related regulations, with a proposed class for messages sent without consent.
- Defendant moved to dismiss on prescription; the court granted dismissal on April 27, 2011, applying Louisiana one-year prescriptive period under the then-prevailing Fifth Circuit framework.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, addressing TCPA jurisdiction; ruling later that TCPA claims are concurrently litigable in state and federal court, overruling Chair King’s exclusive-state-court view.
- Following Mims, the court held a supplemental briefing and reconsidered the prescription issue in light of concurrent federal jurisdiction.
- Court vacated its prior order dismissing the TCPA claim as prescribed and granted reconsideration to allow four-year federal statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 1658) to apply to federal-question TCPA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mims overrides prior reasoning and requires applying §1658 four-year limit. | Bailey argues Mims makes TCPA claims federal, so §1658 applies. | Domino’s argues Mims does not alter the prior framework or prescription. | Yes; Mims overruled prior grounds, four-year limit applies. |
| Whether federal-question TCPA claims in federal court are governed by four-year federal prescription or state law. | Bailey contends §1658 applies to federal-question TCPA claims. | Domino’s contends state prescription applies per §227(b)(3). | Four-year federal prescription applies to federal-question TCPA claims. |
| Does §227(b)(3) apply to TCPA claims in federal court under federal-question jurisdiction? | Bailey relies on concurrent jurisdiction to apply federal rules; §227(b)(3) is not exclusive to state courts. | Bonime and related readings support applying state-law restrictions when action is in state court; limited in federal court. | §227(b)(3) applies to state-court TCPA claims; does not control federal-court prescription; in federal court, §1658 applies. |
| Whether the do-not-call regulations 47 C.F.R. §64.1200(d)-(e) can be privately actionable and pleaded with sufficient specificity. | Bailey asserts violations of do-not-call provisions in TCPA claims. | Complaint insufficiently pleads particularized facts for §64.1200(d); some subparts not privately actionable. | Claims under §64.1200(d)-(e) not stated; dismissed as to those provisions but may be revisited on further pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chair King, Inc. v. Houston Cellular Corp., 131 F.3d 507 (5th Cir.1997) (held exclusive state-court jurisdiction; later overruled by Mims)
- Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740 (U.S. 2012) (concurrent state and federal jurisdiction for TCPA claims; overruled Chair King)
- Bonime v. Avaya, Inc., 547 F.3d 497 (2d Cir.2008) (interpretation of §227(b)(3) to apply state-law limitations in diversity-fed contexts; discussed concurrence)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.2005) (reading §227(b)(3) as creating alternative forum rather than foreclosing federal jurisdiction)
- ErieNet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, Inc., 156 F.3d 513 (3d Cir.1998) (discusses Erie-based prescriptive choices in concurrent jurisdiction context)