Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Associates
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6786
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Three TCPA class actions were filed in the District of New Jersey alleging over 10,000 unsolicited fax advertisements were sent to plaintiffs and others nationwide; plaintiffs sought >$5 million in damages per case.
- District Courts dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on ErieNet’ s federal-question holding.
- Question presented: whether federal courts may exercise diversity jurisdiction over TCPA private actions notwithstanding ErieNet.
- Court held that diversity jurisdiction exists under CAFA when requirements are met, and that ErieNet does not divest federal courts of diversity jurisdiction over TCPA claims.
- The TCPA’s private right of action under § 227(b)(3) authorizes suit in state court, but this does not divest federal courts of diversity jurisdiction for class actions meeting CAFA thresholds.
- The decision remanded for further proceedings on class certification and other jurisdictional issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA grants federal jurisdiction over TCPA private class actions | Landsman argues CAFA confers jurisdiction for aggregated TCPA claims | Defendants contend CAFA does not override ErieNet’s limits on federal-question jurisdiction | CAFA provides federal jurisdiction if CAFA thresholds are met |
| Whether TCPA § 227(b)(3) divests federal courts of diversity jurisdiction | Plaintiffs rely on federal-court access under CAFA for diversity | Defendants argue TCPA text implies exclusive state-court forum | Diversity jurisdiction remains available where CAFA thresholds are met |
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists for TCPA private actions | Plaintiffs contend some TCPA provisions create federal questions | Defendants rely on ErieNet to preclude federal-question jurisdiction | Federal-question jurisdiction does not attach under TCPA private claims; diversity/CAFA governs when applicable |
| Role of ErieNet in diversity-dominated analysis | ErieNet should be read to preclude federal-question but not diversity | ErieNet forecloses federal-question jurisdiction and is not limited to that basis | ErieNet does not foreclose diversity jurisdiction under CAFA; TCPA remains compatible with §1332 |
Key Cases Cited
- ErieNet v. Velocity Net, Inc., 155 F.3d 513 (3d Cir. 1998) (held no federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA claims; dismisses reliance on federal-question basis)
- Gottlieb v. Carnival Corp., 436 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2006) (diversity jurisdiction exists for TCPA claims under CAFA when thresholds are met)
- Foxhall Realty Law Offices, Inc. v. Telecomms. Premium Servs., Ltd., 156 F.3d 432 (2d Cir. 1998) (federal-question jurisdiction not established for private TCPA claims)
- Int’l Sci. & Tech. Inst., Inc. v. Inacom Comm’cns, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146 (4th Cir. 1997) (discussion of congressional intent in TCPA context; state/federal balance)
- Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 630 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2010) (federal-question jurisdiction exception discussed post-ErieNet)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (federal-question jurisdiction under TCPA recognized by some courts; contrast with ErieNet view)
- Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505 (1900) (illustrates when federal causes of action do not confer federal-question jurisdiction but may allow diversity)