By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 18, 2012//
By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//January 18, 2012//
U.S. Supreme Court
Civil
Consumer Protection – TCPA — federal court jurisdiction
The TCPA’s permissive grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not deprive the U. S. district courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits.
Arrow’s arguments do not persuade this Court that Congress eliminated §1331 jurisdiction over private TCPA actions. Title 47 U. S. C. §227(b)(3)’s language may be state-court oriented, but “the grant of jurisdiction to one court does not, of itself, imply that the jurisdiction is to be exclusive,” United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 296 U. S. 463, 479. Nothing in §227(b)(3)’s permissive language makes state-court jurisdiction exclusive, or otherwise purports to oust federal courts of their §1331 jurisdiction. The provision does not state that a private plaintiff may bring a TCPA action “only” or “exclusively” in state court. In contrast, 47 U. S. C. A. §227(g)(2)(Supp. 2011) vests “exclusive jurisdiction” over state-initiated TCPA suits in the federal courts. Section 227(g)(2)’s exclusivity prescription “reinforce[s] the conclusion that [47 U. S. C. §227(b)(3)’s] silence . . . leaves the jurisdictional grant of §1331 untouched. For where otherwise applicable jurisdiction was meant to be excluded, it was excluded expressly.” Verizon Md., 535 U. S., at 644.
421 Fed. Appx. 920, reversed and remanded.
Local effect: The opinion is consistent with Seventh Circuit precedent. Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446, 447 (7th Cir. 2005).
10-1195 Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC
Ginsburg, J.