Silver v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency
706 F. App'x 369
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Neil Silver sued PHEAA under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for calls/texts; the statutory amendment at issue was enacted while the case was pending.
- The district court granted summary judgment for PHEAA, applying a TCPA amendment retroactively to resolve the case against Silver.
- Silver appealed, arguing retroactive application was improper and that material factual disputes remained.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether the amendment should apply retroactively under the three-part Landgraf test.
- The panel found the claim had accrued before the amendment, implicating the presumption against retroactivity, and saw no clear congressional intent to overcome that presumption.
- The court also determined genuine disputes of material fact existed on alternative grounds, precluding summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCPA amendment may be applied retroactively | Amendment cannot be applied retroactively to extinguish Silver’s accrued claim | Amendment may be applied to this case despite being enacted during pendency | Reversed district court — amendment may not be applied retroactively; presumption against retroactivity applies |
| Whether an accrued statutory personal-injury claim is impaired by retroactive application | Retroactive extinguishment impairs rights possessed when acted | No impairment that triggers Landgraf’s presumption | Court: accrued personal claim is protected by the strong presumption against retroactivity |
| Whether Congress clearly intended retroactive effect | No clear congressional statement or consideration of unfairness; policy goals insufficient | Enactment served national interest in debt collection, implying retroactive application | Court: national interest alone does not show Congress intended to override the presumption |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on alternative grounds | Genuine disputes of material fact exist | District court resolved alternative grounds in favor of defendant | Court: material factual disputes preclude summary judgment; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.) (discussing retroactivity and presumption against applying amendments to accrued claims)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (establishing the three-step test for statutory retroactivity)
- Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017) (held that a TCPA violation can constitute a concrete injury for standing)