Jeffrey Parchman v. SLM Corp.
896 F.3d 728
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiffs Jeffrey Parchman and Nancy Carlin sued SLM, Navient, Navient Solutions, Inc. (NSI), and Sallie Mae Bank (SMB) under the TCPA for alleged unauthorized autodialed and prerecorded calls to cell phones. Parchman later died; Plaintiffs sought to substitute his daughter and add his mother.
- Carlin alleged she received calls from NSI beginning in late 2014 despite requests to stop; Parchman alleged calls from SMB though he never owed a debt and asked callers to stop.
- NSI moved to sever and dismiss Carlin’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court granted severance and dismissed Carlin’s claims against NSI for lack of jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs moved to amend to substitute Parchman’s daughter and add his mother; the district court denied amendment, holding TCPA claims do not survive death and that substitution would be improper; the court expressed concerns about counsel’s delay in reporting Parchman’s death.
- Plaintiffs appealed the severance/dismissal and the denial of leave to amend; the Sixth Circuit affirmed severance and dismissal as to NSI but reversed and remanded the denial to add Parchman’s mother and to reconsider substitution of the daughter after holding that TCPA claims survive a plaintiff’s death.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in severing Carlin’s claims | Severance unexplained and improper | Different callers/companies and facts justify severance | Affirmed: severance was within discretion because claims involved different callers and proof |
| Whether NSI waived personal jurisdiction defense by participating in litigation | NSI actively participated (answer, discovery, joined motions) so waived defense | NSI’s participation was limited to Parchman’s claims and it specially appeared to contest jurisdiction for Carlin | Affirmed: no waiver; NSI consistently reserved jurisdictional objections for Carlin’s claims |
| Whether TCPA claims survive a plaintiff’s death (futility of substituting a successor) | TCPA claims survive; amendment should be allowed | TCPA is penal/privacy-based and does not survive; claims are nonassignable and substitution improper | Reversed: TCPA claims are remedial and survive death; remanded to reconsider substitution |
| Whether district court permissibly denied leave to add Parchman’s mother | Leave should be freely given; mother asserts independent claims and judicial economy favors addition | Delay/bad faith and counsel issues justify denial | Reversed as to mother: district court failed to state reasons; remand for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Gerber v. Riordan, 649 F.3d 514 (6th Cir. 2011) (waiver of personal jurisdiction turns on whether filings amounted to legal submission)
- King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (courts consider all circumstances in deciding waiver of personal jurisdiction)
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing personal jurisdiction dismissal)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given absent reasons like undue delay, bad faith, or futility)
- Murphy v. Household Fin. Corp., 560 F.2d 206 (6th Cir. 1977) (framework for whether statutory causes of action survive death; remedial vs. penal analysis)
- Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (2012) (federal law governs substantive rules for federal causes of action)
- Beydoun v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to amend when dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is asserted as ground)