Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
132 S. Ct. 740
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- TCPA creates private rights of action and regulates telemarketing via FCC regulations.
- Congress allowed private TCPA actions in state courts but vested state-initiated actions with exclusive federal district court jurisdiction when brought by states.
- Mims, a Florida resident, sued Arrow in federal court for TCPA violations using an automatic dialing system.
- District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Eleventh Circuit affirmed, citing exclusive state-court jurisdiction for private TCPA actions.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether private TCPA suits in federal court are permissible alongside state-court actions.
- Court held that private TCPA claims arise under federal law and that federal courts maintain concurrent jurisdiction with state courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TCPA private action rely exclusively on state courts? | Mims: private TCPA actions are exclusive to state courts. | Arrow: §227(b)(3) implies exclusivity for state courts in private actions. | No; concurrent jurisdiction exists |
| Does §1331 federal-question jurisdiction survive alongside §227(b)(3)? | Mims: federal-question jurisdiction exists because TCPA creates the claim and governs decisions. | Arrow: federal jurisdiction displaced by later TCPA provisions. | Concurrent jurisdiction remains; §1331 not displaced |
| Does §227(g)(2) render private TCPA actions non-justiciable in federal court? | N/A | TCPA’s private action language is not exclusive; §227(g)(2) covers state-enforcement actions only. | No exclusivity for private actions; federal courts may hear them |
Key Cases Cited
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (presumption of concurrent jurisdiction unless expressly displaced)
- Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473 (1981) (concurrent jurisdiction principles and implied exclusivity limits)
- American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916) (suit arising under the law that creates the cause of action)
- Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990) (presumption of concurrent jurisdiction unless Congress overtly excludes)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (congressional silence on exclusivity in private TCPA actions weighs against exclusion)
- ErieNet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, Inc., 156 F.3d 513 (3d Cir. 1998) (considerations on statutory interpretation of jurisdictional grants)
- Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 (1990) (language of statutes does not automatically create exclusive federal jurisdiction)
- Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc., 136 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 1998) (circuits split on federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA actions)