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.