*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS _______________________________________
) )
BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, CIVIL ACTION ) Plaintiff, ) NO. 4:12-40088-TSH ) v.
) )
ACT, INC., ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________ MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 207)
May 21, 2020
HILLMAN, D.J.
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against ACT, Inc.
(“Defendant”), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47
U.S.C. § 227, and a similar New York state law. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject
mattеr jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims are moot. (Docket No. 207). The Court agrees
that Plaintiff no longer has a cognizable interest in any injunctive or monetary reliеf and thus that
its claims are moot.
See Town of Portsmouth, R.I. v. Lewis
,
First, as to injunctive relief, thе Court finds it significant that Defendant has not transmitted
the disputed faxes to anyone since 2012 and has no plans to transmit these faxes in the future. An
injunction would not provide any meaningful relief to Plaintiff under these circumstances.
Plaintiff argues that its claims nonetheless remain live under the voluntary cessation exception to
mootness. But the voluntary cessation exception does not apply if a defendant shows that “the
allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonаbly be expected to recur,” and here, Defendant has
made the requisitе showing. ,
Second, as to monetary relief, Dеfendant has unconditionally tendered to Plaintiff all the
statutory damages that it sеeks on an individual basis (including statutory damages for the
dismissed New York state law claims). As the Court could not order Defendant to pay Plaintiff
This covenant, moreоver, is backed by an agreement “to pay Bais Yaakov one thousand
five hundred dollars ($1,500) for any facsimile that ACT sends in the future to a telephone
facsimile machine owned by Bais Yaakov that fails to contain the information that is required
under the TCPA.” (Docket No. 208-2 at 8). Plaintiff suggests that this covenant is not enforcеable,
but ACT, having relied on its agreement to this condition to moot the instant case, would be hard-
pressed to disclaim it in the future.
See Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc
.,
аny sum beyond what Plaintiff has already received from Defendant, an award of monetary
damages would be meaningless.
See Lewis
,
In sum, because there are no live issues for the Court to resolve and the parties lack any legally cognizable interest in the outcome, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss the case for mootness. (Dоcket No. 207).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN DISTRICT JUDGE
Notes
[1] Although the Court assumes for the purposes of this motion that an awаrd of injunctive relief would have been appropriate in this case, thе Court is not convinced. The Complaint seeks an injunction to prevent ACT from sending future faxes that violate the TCPA, and as Plaintiff acknowledges, a general obey-the-law injunction does not constitute meaningful relief. (Docket No. 212 at 12). Plаintiff now suggests that it seeks to prevent ACT from sending faxes to Bais Yaaokv in the future. Thеre are, however, legal reasons ACT may need to send Bais Yaakov faxes in the future, e.g., transmitting a student’s score on its exam.