Health One Med. Ctr., Eastpointe P. L. L.C. v. Mohawk, Inc.
889 F.3d 800
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Mohawk Medical, a pharmaceutical wholesaler, sent unsolicited fax advertisements to Health One Medical Center offering discounted prices on multiple drugs.
- Faxes listed Mohawk’s contact info and prices for 14 drugs, including drugs manufactured by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer.
- Health One obtained a default judgment against Mohawk and then amended its complaint to sue Bristol and Pfizer, alleging they “sent” the faxes because the faxes advertised their drugs.
- Bristol and Pfizer moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court granted the motions.
- On appeal, the central legal question was whether manufacturers that neither dispatched nor caused the faxes to be sent can be liable under the TCPA provision forbidding sending unsolicited fax advertisements.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding the manufacturers did not “send” the faxes under the ordinary meaning of the term and the FCC regulation was not a basis to impose liability on parties that did not send or cause the faxes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manufacturers who were merely named/price-listed in unsolicited fax ads "sent" the faxes under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) | The faxes advertised their drugs, so under the FCC definition they are "senders" and liable | They did not use or dispatch a fax machine nor cause Mohawk to send the faxes, so they did not "send" them | Manufacturers did not "send" the faxes; no liability |
| Whether the FCC regulation's definition of "sender" imposes liability on parties that did not dispatch or cause the fax | The FCC regulation defines "sender" to include the party on whose behalf goods are advertised, making manufacturers liable | The regulation must be read in statutory context and cannot eliminate the statute's requirement that a sender use or cause transmission | FCC regulation does not impose liability on parties who neither dispatched nor caused the fax; it allocates liability where a hirer caused a broadcaster to send |
| Whether prior Sixth Circuit decisions compel a different result | Relied on Alco and Imhoff as establishing broader liability | Those cases involved defendants who hired fax broadcasters, so they do not support liability for innocent parties | Prior cases are distinguishable; they involved defendants who actually engaged broadcasters |
| Whether plaintiff's allegations suffice at the motion-to-dismiss stage | Complaint alleges defendants "sent" the faxes | Allegation is conclusory and lacks facts making transmission plausible | Allegations are conclusory and implausible; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for dismissal de novo)
- United States v. Zabawa, 719 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2013) (use of ordinary meaning for undefined statutory terms)
- Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (U.S. 2014) (importance of reading regulations in statutory context)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss)
- Siding & Insulation Co. v. Alco Vending, Inc., 822 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2016) (distinguishable Sixth Circuit decision involving a defendant who hired a fax broadcaster)
- Imhoff Inv., LLC v. Alfoccino, Inc., 792 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2015) (distinguishable Sixth Circuit decision involving use of a fax broadcaster)