Sprye v. Ace Motor Acceptance Corp.
8:16-cv-03064
| D. Maryland | May 3, 2017Background
- Ace Motor Acceptance (North Carolina) made at least a dozen collection calls to Jamal Sprye’s cell phone between Feb. 2013 and May 2014 after being unable to reach his sister, a borrower; calls were made using a VoIP system and allegedly recorded.
- Sprye sued individually and as putative class representative in Maryland state court asserting: (1) TCPA §227(b) calls to a cell phone via an ATDS; (2) knowing/willful TCPA violations; (3) Maryland TCPA claims; and (4) Maryland Wiretapping Act claims for recording without consent.
- Ace removed under federal-question jurisdiction (TCPA) and CAFA, then moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; attached materials prompted Plaintiff’s Rule 56(d) affidavit seeking discovery.
- Court declined to convert the motion to summary judgment (granted Plaintiff discovery opportunity), treated the motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion, and applied Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards.
- Court dismissed (without prejudice) the federal TCPA and Maryland TCPA counts for failure to plausibly plead use of an ATDS; concluded it had federal jurisdiction over TCPA claims and supplemental jurisdiction over Maryland TCPA.
- Court found Plaintiff lacked Article III standing for the Maryland Wiretapping Act claim and remanded that state-law claim to Montgomery County Circuit Court (but retained the federal TCPA-related claims after dismissal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges use of an ATDS for TCPA/MDTCPA | Alleged calls were made via a VoIP system and asserted in complaint that calls were via an ATDS | Alleged facts insufficient; plaintiff must plead factual content showing system met statutory ATDS definition | Dismissed TCPA and Maryland TCPA claims without prejudice for failure to plead the ATDS element plausibly |
| Whether federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over TCPA claims after removal | TCPA creates a private right enforceable in federal court; removal proper | Removal proper; federal-question jurisdiction exists for TCPA claims | Court has federal-question jurisdiction over TCPA claims (Mims controls) |
| Whether the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Maryland TCPA | Maryland TCPA derives from same nucleus of operative fact; should be heard with federal claims | Supplemental jurisdiction proper and efficient | Court exercised §1367 supplemental jurisdiction over Maryland TCPA claim |
| Whether the Maryland Wiretapping Act claim can remain in federal court (standing/remand) | Plaintiff did not identify a concrete injury from alleged recordings; if no Article III standing, claim must be remanded to state court | Recordings lawfully made in NC (one-party consent) and plaintiff lacks standing | Plaintiff lacks Article III standing for the Maryland Wiretapping Act claim; that claim was remanded to state court, while other federal/state TCPA claims remained in this court |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility and pleading requirements)
- Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368 (TCPA private actions may be heard in federal court)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (Article III standing requires concrete injury)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (supplemental jurisdiction cannot cure lack of Article III standing)
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (common nucleus of operative fact for supplemental jurisdiction)