Consumers Can File TCPA Suits Against Collectors in Federal Court: Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court set aside two lower court decisions and ruled that consumers should be allowed to bring Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims in Federal Court. The case before the Court involved a debt collection agency.
Previously, lower courts had decided that TCPA claims were the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts in the case Marcus D. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC.
Mims sued Arrow in federal District Court in Florida, alleging that Arrow violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) and the TCPA by failing to disclose “its name, that it was a debt collector and the purpose of its communication in telephone messages” in its attempt to collect on a debt. Both parties stipulated to dismissal of the FDCPA and FCCPA claims, and on April 5, 2010, the District Court dismissed Mims’ TCPA claim, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the TCPA claims. Mims appealed the ruling to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
The case then moved to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted it and heard oral arguments on November 28, 2011.
The decision to reverse the lower court rulings was unanimous, with Justice Ginsburg delivering the opinion of the Court. There were no other opinions written.
The Court’s ruling paves the way for consumers to bring TCPA suits in both state and federal courts. The matter before the Supreme Court was whether TCPA suits should be allowed exclusively in state courts or if both systems could be used.
“Nothing in [the TCPA’s] permissive language makes state-court jurisdiction exclusive, or otherwise purports to oust federal courts of their [statutory] jurisdiction,” wrote Ginsburg. “The provision does not state that a private plaintiff may bring a TCPA action ‘only’ or ‘exclusively’ in state court.”
The National Consumer Law Center and National Association of Consumer Advocates filed a brief as amici curiae on behalf of Mims, while ACA International and the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center filed briefs as amici on behalf of Arrow Financial.
ACA noted today that, “While the decision is contrary to ACA’s position, it resolves a split between the U.S. Courts of Appeals.”
Mims was represented by Scott L. Nelson and Deepak Gupta of the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington. Arrow was represented by Gregory G. Garre of Latham & Watkins in Washington and Barbara A. Sinsley of Barron, Newburger & Sinsley in Austin, Texas.
No debtor should be allowed to bring any suit against a creditor or collection agency without first depositing the full amount owed to the court. This would cut down on the abusive practices of these bottom-feeding consumer attorneys.
Are you sure you meant to say CONSUMER attorneys? It would seem that the real bottom-feeders are the FAUX attorneys, working at collection agencies, without any law degree, law license or even having spent one day in law school. Of course, they’re very shady about how they pull that off, calling themselves the “legal liaison” for LHR, or by simply answering the phone as “Litigation Office”, and having other parties refer to them as the “attorney handling the case” when instructing the mark (victim) to send payment to the FAUX attorney by Western Union.
You know, the ones who sign falsified court documents attesting to the truthfulness of the information being submitted, when they have no personal knowledge of the veracity at all. Then there are the FAUX cops who terrorize financially troubled debtors with FAUX warrants for their arrest, which often often had been threatened already by the FAUX attorneys. Many victims of this tactic are also victims of identity theft, or mistaken identity, who have no connection to the debt, except that they happen to bear the same name as the actual debtor.
Debt collectors are often too lazy or disinterested in verifying such simple factors as current and former home addresses, workplaces or Social Security numbers. All they care is that they reached a live body on the phone, who they can often extort for any sort of profit via terroristic threats, and may the truth be damned.