Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
565 U.S. 368
SCOTUS2012Background
- TCPA prohibits certain telemarketing practices and authorizes FCC regulations to protect residential privacy.
- Private TCPA actions may be brought in state courts or federal courts under federal-question jurisdiction.
- Mims sued Arrow Financial Services in Florida federal court alleging willful TCPA violations from autodialed calls to his cell phone.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, adopting Eleventh Circuit view that private TCPA actions are exclusive to state courts.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed; this Court granted certiorari to resolve whether private TCPA suits are exclusively in state court or may be heard in federal court under §1331.
- The Court held that federal-question jurisdiction under §1331 exists concurrently with state-court jurisdiction for private TCPA actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether private TCPA actions are exclusively in state court | Mims argues federal courts retain jurisdiction under §1331 for private TCPA claims. | Arrow argues §227(b)(3) grants exclusive state-court jurisdiction for private TCPA actions. | No exclusive state-court jurisdiction; §1331 remains concurrent. |
| Whether Congress divested federal courts of §1331 authority over private TCPA actions | Mims contends federal law creates the private claim and governs decision-making, keeping §1331 alive. | Arrow contends the TCPA's structure implies state courts only for private actions. | Congress did not divest federal-question jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257 (1916) (suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action)
- Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U. S. 308 (2005) (federal-question jurisdiction exists where federal issues are substantial and central)
- Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U. S. 635 (2002) (jurisdiction not divested by related statutory provisions unless expressly stated)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (exclusive jurisdiction not implied by absence of language; state/federal balance preserved)
- ErieNet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, Inc., 156 F.3d 513 (3d Cir. 1998) (presumption of concurrent jurisdiction can be overcome by clear indications)
- Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc., 136 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 1998) (early view that private TCPA actions were exclusive to state courts)
- Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U. S. 820 (1990) (statutory language about jurisdiction does not automatically oust state courts)
- Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452 (1974) (federal-question jurisdiction historical context and limitations)
- Breuer v. Jim’s Concrete of Brevard, Inc., 538 U. S. 691 (2003) (Congress can designate nonremovability of certain federal claims from state court)