Sparkle Hill, Inc. v. Interstate Mat Corporation
788 F.3d 25
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- In May 2006 Interstate Mat paid a marketing firm to fax an unsolicited one-page advertisement to ~8,416 recipients, including Sparkle Hill (a New Jersey corp.) and West Concord (a Massachusetts corp.).
- West Concord filed a state-court class action in January 2010 on behalf of recipients; Sparkle Hill filed a separate federal class action in February 2011 asserting TCPA statutory damages of $500 per fax (treble for willful violations).
- Interstate moved for summary judgment in federal court arguing the four-year federal limitations period barred Sparkle Hill's claim; Sparkle Hill did not oppose that limitations defense despite being given leave to do so.
- The district court treated Sparkle Hill’s silence as a concession, granted summary judgment for Interstate, and alternatively held the claim time‑barred (declining to extend American Pipe tolling to a second class action per First Circuit precedent).
- Sparkle Hill sought Rule 60(b)(6) relief to decertify the class and allow individual tolling arguments; the district court denied relief. On appeal the First Circuit affirmed as to the named plaintiffs and construed the judgment as decertifying the class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sparkle Hill’s TCPA claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations | The limitations defense was not properly decided because the burden is on Interstate to prove the affirmative defense; any waiver is harmless | The claim is time‑barred under the four‑year federal catch‑all statute (and plaintiff failed to oppose the defense) | Court affirmed: claim time‑barred as to named plaintiffs; plaintiff waived challenge by failing to raise it in opening brief on appeal |
| Whether American Pipe tolling permits successive class actions to toll the limitations period | Tolling should apply to allow the later federal class action (or at least permit individual class members to pursue tolling) | American Pipe tolling does not permit "stacking" class actions to extend the limitations period | Court declined to reach merits in light of waiver but noted First Circuit precedent forecloses stacking class actions (Basch) |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by entering judgment against the class rather than decertifying | Class should be decertified so absent members can pursue individual tolling claims | The district court’s orders effectively prevented notice and bound only named plaintiffs | Court agreed the class should be decertified and construed the judgment as against the named plaintiffs only |
| Whether appellate waiver rules permit Sparkle Hill to raise the procedural‑waiver challenge for the first time in reply | Waiver was harmless because merits show Interstate bore the burden of proof on limitations | Allowing new argument in reply unfairly prejudices appellee and courts routinely treat such arguments as waived | Court enforced waiver doctrine: arguments raised first in reply are forfeited; plain‑error review was not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (tolling class action principle)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (extension of American Pipe tolling to later individual suits)
- Basch v. Ground Round, Inc., 139 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 1998) (one class action may not be stacked on another to toll limitations)
- Chestnut v. City of Lowell, 305 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2002) (plain‑error review in civil cases is rare)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (class‑action notice/rights required to bind absent class members)