953 F. Supp. 2d 612
D. Maryland2013Background
- Lynn sued Monarch for TCPA, MDTCPA, and FDCPA violations.
- Court previously granted partial summary judgment and denied Lynn’s certification request.
- Lynn’s VoIP 2250 number was charged per-minute and per-call metadata during Monarch’s collection calls.
- Monarch used an ATDS to call the 2250 number 37 times between July 2010 and May 2011.
- The calls targeted Lynn’s residential VoIP line, with Lynn incurring charges for each call and for caller ID transmissions.
- Monarch sought interlocutory appeal certification; Lynn sought reconsideration of MDTCPA and related certification rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VoIP-attached residential lines fall under TCPA call-charged provision. | Lynn asserts call-charged provision applies to ATDS calls to VoIP-attached lines. | Monarch argues residential-line exemption controls; call-charged provision should not apply. | Partially denied: TCPA call-charged provision applies; residential-line exemption not controlling for this conduct. |
| Double damages under TCPA and MDTCPA for same violation. | Lynn contends both statutes permit damages for identical conduct. | Monarch argues no double damages for same violation. | Court will not certify; will order supplemental briefing on double damages issue. |
| Whether to certify an immediate interlocutory appeal on damages question. | Monarch seeks certification to expedite resolution. | Denied; certification declined; only supplemental briefing on double damages was ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Worsham v. Ehrlich, 181 Md.App. 711, 957 A.2d 161 (Md.Ct.Spec.App. 2008) (MDTCPA private right of action for TCPA violations; cautious approach to MDTCPA)
- McLaurin v. E. Jordan Iron Works, Inc., 666 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D.N.C. 2009) (context for reconsideration standards in interlocutory orders)
- Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974) (controlling question of law standard for interlocutory review)