489 F.Supp.3d 499
E.D. La.2020Background
- Putative class action under the TCPA, alleging Charter (via its Spectrum brand) sent automated calls/texts to cell phones without consent. Most alleged transmissions occurred after Congress added a 2015 "government-debt" exception to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).
- In Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants (AAPC), the Supreme Court (2020) struck the government-debt exception as an unconstitutional content-based favoritism and severed that exception from the statute; the Court fractured on whether that decision negated liability for calls made while the exception existed.
- Charter moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) that (a) the pre-AAPC statute was unconstitutional so federal courts lack jurisdiction to enforce it, and (b) the single post-AAPC communication (July 11, 2020 text to Stacy Creasy) is not traceable to Charter. Charter also sought a stay pending the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook v. Duguid addressing the ATDS definition.
- The court adopted the view that the 2015 amendment rendered the entire pre-severance § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) unconstitutional (content-based discrimination), leaving no valid federal law to enforce for communications sent during that period.
- As a result, the court dismissed all TCPA claims arising before July 6, 2020 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; it denied dismissal of the single post-AAPC claim (finding plausibility and traceability at the motion-to-dismiss stage).
- The court granted a stay of the remaining proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook v. Duguid to resolve the ATDS issue and promote judicial economy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over pre-AAPC violations (were pre-July 6, 2020 violations enforceable?) | AAPC severed the exception and confirmed § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) was constitutional, so pre-AAPC claims are enforceable | The 2015 government-debt exception made the statute content-based and unconstitutional while operative; an unconstitutional statute is void so courts lack jurisdiction to enforce it | Held for Charter: court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over all pre-July 6, 2020 alleged violations; those claims dismissed |
| Traceability / subject-matter jurisdiction for July 11, 2020 text to Creasy | Spectrum is a brand/subsidiary of Charter; allegations tie the message to Charter | The July 11 text is not traceable to Charter | Held for Plaintiffs: dismissal denied; plaintiffs adequately allege Spectrum/Charter connection at this stage |
| Rule 12(b)(6) re: July 11, 2020 claim (failure to state a claim) | Complaint pleads automated text from Spectrum and plausibly alleges TCPA violation | The complaint fails to plead facts showing Charter liability | Held for Plaintiffs: claim is plausible; survives 12(b)(6) dismissal |
| Personal jurisdiction over Charter for Hogans' claims | (Hogans) asserts claims arising from defendant's contacts with Louisiana | Charter contends lack of general and specific jurisdiction in Louisiana | Held: court did not reach personal-jurisdiction arguments because Hogans' claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Stay pending Facebook v. Duguid | Plaintiffs want to proceed; disputed | A stay will conserve resources and Facebook likely decides key ATDS question that could be dispositive | Held: stay granted pending Supreme Court resolution of Facebook v. Duguid |
Key Cases Cited
- Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020) (Supreme Court struck the government-debt exception as content-based and severed it from the TCPA)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (plurality opinion rule for fractured decisions)
- Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) (severability characterized as a remedial tool and discussion of remedies)
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (unconstitutional laws are void)
- Ex Parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) (an unconstitutional law is as no law)
- United States v. Baucum, 80 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to enforce an unconstitutional statute)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) (recognizing vicarious liability principles for TCPA claims under FCC and federal common law)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for plausible claims)
- Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (judicial power to stay proceedings for docket control and economy)