Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC
630 F.3d 459
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- Charvat sued EchoStar Satellite under the TCPA, related regulations, and Ohio law for 30 calls between 2004 and 2007.
- Calls were traced to EchoStar's retailers: Dish TV Now, Marrik Dish Co., Marketing Guru, SatelliteSales.com, JSR Enterprises, and Dish Pronto.
- District court dismissed four counts and granted summary judgment on remaining TCPA and state-law claims; Charvat appealed.
- The court considered federal-question jurisdiction under Grable and discussed per-call vs per-violation damages and potential punitive damages aggregation.
- Court concluded federal-question jurisdiction exists and debated whether to refer the matter to the FCC under primary jurisdiction.
- The panel decided to refer the case to the FCC with briefing and a 60-day window for agency ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under Grable framework | Charvat contends federal-question jurisdiction exists over TCPA claims. | EchoStar argues jurisdiction should be limited or improper absent exclusive federal forum. | Grable factors favor jurisdiction; referral to FCC contemplated. |
| Damages basis for first call | Charvat may recover for the first TCPA violation under the statute. | EchoStar contends damages are limited per call or per violation as applicable. | First-call damages recoverable; district court erred in dismissing on that ground. |
| Vicarious liability for independent contractors | Charvat seeks liability on EchoStar for calls placed by independent contractors. | EchoStar disputes vicarious liability under the cited provisions and regulations. | Questions unresolved pending FCC interpretation; referral to agency requested. |
| Primary jurisdiction and agency referral | FCC expertise should resolve questions about who may be liable and how. | EchoStar resists referral to the FCC at this stage. | Referral to the FCC ordered; agency to provide ruling within 60 days. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg, 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (establishes test for federal-question jurisdiction in supplemental state claims)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1938) (amount-in-controversy must be satisfied at filing; per-case certainty matters)
- Jones v. Knox Exploration Corp., 2 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 1993) (jurisdictional adequacy considerations in multi-claim cases)
- Hayes v. Equitable Energy Res. Co., 266 F.3d 560 (6th Cir. 2001) (punitive damages can affect amount-in-controversy)
- Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 426 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1976) (savings- or private-right questions; coexistence of common law)
- Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1990) (private-right-of-action provisions do not automatically divest state courts of jurisdiction)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (exclusivity of state forum not implied by TCPA provisions)
- GVN Mich., Inc. v. Charvat, 561 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2009) (TCPA damages for first call recognized; per-call damages framework)