Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 30

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 1 of 7

, | 2 , 4 5 6

Chad Austin. Esq. SBN235457 3129lndiaStreet SanDieso. 92103-601 CA 4 Telephoie: 297-3888 1Ot9) (619) Facsimile: 295-1401 Attorney Plaintiff, for JAMESM. KINDER,anindividual

8 9 l0
II l2 l3 14 l) 16 v' J A M E SM . K I N D E R ,

UNITED STATESDISTRICTCoURT SoUTHERNDISTRICToF CALIFoRNIA

N C a s e o . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A . l B ) .ludge: IIon. DanaM. Sabraw Mag..ludge: IIon. Anthony.f. f]attaglia PLAINTIFF .IAMF],S . KINDER'S M OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; MEMORANDT]M IN ST]PPORT THEREOF Date: March21. 2008 Time: l:-i0n.rn. Courtroom: l0 I. INTRODUCTION

plaintift,

DISCOVERCARD SERVICES, Inc.and D O E SI t h r o u g h 0 0 . n c l u s i v e . 1 i Def-endants.

t7 18 19 20 2I
aa LL

PLI]ASE TO THE COURT. ALL PARTIES AND THEIRATI.ORNBYS RECORD: OF Def'endant DISCOVUR TAKE NOTICETHAT Plaintiff opposes JAMESM. KINDERhereby for set on CARD SERVICES, Inc.'sMotionfor Partial Judgment thePleadings, thereasons forth below.
t/ t/ /l

23 24 25
26

27 28
C A S E N O .O TC V 2 I 3 2 D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 30

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 2 of 7

I 2
J

II. ARGUMENT

IN ORDERFOR THE TCPA TO HAVE ANY EFFECT" THIS COURT MUST FIND THAT THERE IS A PRIVATERIGHT OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS (bxl) AND 47 C.F.R. (bX2) Q! 47 C.F.R. $64.1200 864.1200
l. Defendant'sInterpretation Of The Statutory SchemeEncourages Violations Of The Telephone ConsumerProtection Act ITCPAI And 47 C.F.R. RendersThe TCPA Entirely IneffectiveAnd Makes It Easier For $64.1200, TCPA Violators To EscapeLiability.

4 5 6

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, in additionto otherlaws was passed address to

8 9
a nationalepidemicof out of controlautodialers deceptivc prerecorded artillcialvoicc and and

that the eachday. In IiCC Rcportand Order 1 0 messages invaded privacyof millions of Americans 165,the FCC notedthat "Congress 1 l 03-153,paragraph lbund thal automaled prerecordcd or

1 2 telephone callswerea...nuisance" an "invasionof privacy." The Commission and furthernoted l3 14 l5 l6

thattelemarketing callshadincreased from aboutl8 million per day in the []nitedStales 1991, in to approximately million perdayin the UnitedStates 2003. l'he prolil-eration 104 in ol'invasive and offensiveautodialed, prerecorded artificialvoicecalls in the tJnitedStales and causcd

1 7 Congress passthe Telephone to Consumer Protection of I 991. Pursuant the ameliorative Act to l8 19 20 21 22
z)

goalspursued Congress by when it passed TCPA, the FCC adopted numberof Regulations the a relatedtheretoto further thosesamelaudablesoals.

Among the Regulations adopted the FCC to enhance by the'fCI'A's ellbcl were47 (b) (b) C.F.R.$64.1200 (1) and47 C.l'.R.$64.1200 (2). -l'hose regulalions require that,anytime

24 25

a personor entity makesa prerecorded artificial voice message call. the beginningof the or message must give the propernameof the personor entity making the call and, during or after

26 27 28
C A S E O .0 7C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B ) N

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 30

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 3 of 7

, 2 3 4 ' 5 6 , 8 9

(b) the message, person entitymust leaveits telephone the or number. 47 C.F.R.$64.1200 (1): 'l'he (b) a7 C.F.R.$64.1200 (2), respectively. The reasons theserequirements clear. for are Regulations were adoptedso that unscrupulous scofflawsdisseminating thousands calls to of innocentconsumers would be identifiable.If it werenot for theserepulations. collection agencics telemarketers and could disseminate constant a tidal waveof anonymously autodialed andprerecorded/artifrcial voicecallsto thousands innocent of consumers without consequence, just as they did prior to enactment the TCPA. This is because, of when a'l'CPA violatorfails to l.uu. its nameor telephone number,it is much more difficult, if not impossible, victimsto fbr figure out who calledthem. Therefore, it were not for 47 C.F.R.$64.1200 ( I ) anrJ (b) if 47 (b) C.F.R.864.1200 (2),TCPA victimswould havealmostno way to suelbr because theywould not know who to sue. -fCPA violations

r0
ll 12 13 14
tJ '<

By giving-fCPA victims a privateright of actionwith minimum statutory damages o1madethe TCPA a consumer-friendly. victim-enfbrcing statute.The $500per violation,Congress ideawasto makeit easyfor victimsto bringactions SmallClaimsCourtlor similarlribunalsl, in lirr'l'Cll'A violations. without the needfor hiring an attorney, recoverstatutory to damages (b) (b) Without47 C.F.R.$64.1200 (1) and47 C.F.R.564.1200 (2), victimshaveno way o1' knowins who it is who hascalledthem because therewould be no incentivefor -fCPA violators

16 17 l8 19 20
)1 -\

22

all scheme, a collection construction the statutory of to identifuthemselves. UnderDefendant's firm would have to do to avoid liability underthe TCPA is secretits agencyor telemarketing risk because thereis no privateright of action identity. And, this could be doneat no economic requircments. identification Regulations for for individualconsumers the Codeof Federal 7 3 D C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N

,^ 25 26 2 28

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 30

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 4 of 7

r I 2 3 4 5 6 , 3 9 l0 ll 12 13 14
l <

Defendant's construction the statutory of scheme totallyemasculates C.F.R.{64.1200 47 (b) (1) and 47 C.F.R.564.1200 (2) and,consequently, TCPA. If TCPA victims haveno (b) the privateright of actionfor violationsof 47 C.F.R.$64.1 200 (b) ( 1) and 47 C.F.R.$64.1 200 (b) (2). thoseregulations cease haveany effect. This, in turn, means to that the T'CPAhasno effect because TCPA violatorscangleefullycontinue with their clandestine. on liaudulentand abhorrent practices, laughing the way to the bankbecause they haveto do to avoid civil all all liability is not identifythemselves. This absurdresultsurelywas not intended Congress, by which was attempting protectconsumers, makeit easier recreant to not for collectionagencies and telemarketers illegallyinvadethe lives and homesof innocent to Americans.Any suggestion to the contraryby Def'endant flies in the facc of all logic because totally contradicts purpose it thc of the TCPA and showsno rcspect forthe privacyconcerns addrcsscd Congrcss by therein. Defendant's interpretation the TCPA therefbre that it creatcs right without a remedy, of is a which is completely antithetical the purpose the statute. to of 2. There Is A Consensus Among StateCourts Around The Country That There Is A PrivateRight Of Action For ViolationsOf The TCPA's TechnicalAnd ProceduralStandardsFound In The Codeof FederalRegulations.

tJ

16 17 lg l9 20 21 22

State courlsin NewJersey, Ohio,Missouri Colorado, and South(larolinahaveall determined that there is a private right of action for violationsof the technicaland procedural requirements with the TCPA found in the Code of FederalRegulations. associated

n"^ 24 25 26 2 2g

Mar. 21, 2005); ,Sec. Srerling . Real|tCo. v. Klein,2005TCPA Rep.1353(N..f Super. (nc..2002TCPA Rep.1135(Colo.Dist. Feb.24,2003); McKennav. Accurate Como.Svcs.. Inc. Bailqt v. Drummond,2O04 TCPA Rep. 1373(Colo. D.C. Dec. 29.2004);Mathemaesthetics, 7 4 D C A S E N O . OC V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) 7

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 30

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 5 of 7

1
z
J

v. LassiterMktg. Group,LLC,2002 TCPA Rep. 1061(Colo.Dist. June6,2002); Charvatv. R)tan,2006 TCPA Rep.1480(168Ohio App.3d78, 858N.E.2d845);Charvatv. Folqt.2006 TCPA Rep. 1449(Ohio C.P.May 8, 2006);Charvatv. Health Care Plan of America,\nc.,2007 TCPA Rep. 1534(Ohio C.P.March 16.2007);Charvarv. Konah Intl., LTD, 2005 TCPA Rep. 'I'CPA 1681(Ohio C.P.,Sep.13,2005); Charvatv. Telebttic.y, LL.C,2006 Rcp. 1488(2006Ohio 'I'CPA 4623,Ohio App. 2006);Schreutv. Roclq, Mtn. Reclamation, 2001 Rep. I 182(Mo. Cir. Dec. 18,2007); Agostinelli Roberts v. Mortg. Co..2002I'CPARep.1054(S.C.Magis.Mar.25, 2002\.

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 t4 15 t6

3.

StateCourt Jurisdiction Of TCPA Matters Is ExclusiveAnd Therefore Deference Should Be Given To States'Courts' Construction Of The TCPA And RelatedSections The Code Of Federal Regulations. Of

Althoughthis casewas removed this Court by Defendant to based grounds diversity on of of citizenship, was originallyfiled in SanDiego Superior it Court. That is bccausc. although the I'CPA is a lbderallycreated jurisdictionover I'CI'A cascs cxclusivcto Statccourts.cxccpt, act, is

1 7 possibly,in situations diversityof citizcnship.l 'l-helact that Slatecourtjurisdictiono1"l'CI'A of 1 8 mattersis exclusive obvious is based the plain language the T'CPA. "Privatc right of on of l9 20 21
an appropriate court of that State- (A) an actionbased a violationof this subsection the or on

action - A personmay,if otherwise permitted the lawsor rulesof court of a State, by bring in

prescribed 47 underthis subsection..." addedlbr emphasis.] 22 regulations [Bolding,underlining
z-)

( u . s . c $2 2 7 b ) ( 3 ) . .

24 25 26 27 28
date. in he the I Although Plaintiff notbrought Motionfor Remand thiscase, reserves rightto do soat a later has a ) C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 30

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 6 of 7

r I 2 3 4 5 6 t g g l0 1l 12 l3

Moreover,it is well settledamongcourtsaroundthe United Statesthat there is exclusive Statecourtjurisdiction over TCPA claims broughtunderthe private right of action. "The legislative historyand purpose the TCPA support view that Congress of the intended confer to jurisdictionon statecourtsover privaterightsof action...Although exclusive over {brty state legislatures enacted had measures restricting unsolicited telemarketing, thesemeasures had limited effectbecause states not havejurisdictionover interstate do calls." Foxhall RealtvLaw ()t/ices, Inc. v. Telecom. Prem.Serv.,(2d Cir. 1998)156F. 3d 432.437 .

"The TCPA is unusual that it givesstatecourtsexclusive.jurisdiction privale in over rightsof action[conferred federallaw] and limits [flederalcourl.lurisdiction civil actions by to to enfbrcethe |CPA broughtby attorneys general the Federal or Communicalions Clommission."

14 Kaulmunv. ACS S)tstems, I l0 Cal.App.4"' Inc., 886.897,2 Cal.Rprr.3d296 [citingSchulmanv. l5 l6 17 18 lg 20 21 22 permitled by the laws or rule,; rlf court o.fa Slalc,' bring that a personor entity may,'if otherwise ^^ /.+ 25 26 2 2g a TCPA actionin an appropriate courtof that state...States retainthe ultimatedecision thus of whetherprivateTCPA actions in & will be cognizable their courts."' Inlern. Science Tech. I n s t i t u t e vI.n a c o m C o m m1.4 ' h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) 6 F . 3 d1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 6 - 1 1 5i8a l i c s a d d e d . " . t a t e s . 10 [ t ]s 7 6 C A S E O .0 7C V 2 r 3 2D M S( A J B ) N exclusive overa [private] cause actioncreated of by'a lbderal statute[,1he'l'CPA]." iurisdiction Id. fcitingMurpheJ,v. Lanier.(gth Cir.2000) 204 F.3d9l1,915.] "Apparently recognizingthar the exclusivityof statecourtjurisdictioncould create problem..., a Congress avoidedany constitutional issueby refusing coerce providinginstead to states hearprivatel'CPA actions" to C h a s e a n h a t t a n a n k ( 2 0 0 0 )2 6 8A . D . 2 d 1 7 4 , 1 7 8 . 7 1 N . Y . S . 2 d 6 8 . 3 7 1 . 1" A t l e a s s i x M B 0 3 . t federalcircuit courtshavereached'the somewhatunusualconclusionthat statecourtshave

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 30

Filed 02/05/2008

Page 7 of 7

, 2 3
4

havebeengiven,subiect their consenl, lo exclusive subject matterjurisdiction over private ' actionsauthorized the Telephone by Consumer Protection of 1991...'Id at p. 1I 50 [italics Act added];accord, Foxhall Real\t Law Office,Inc. v. Telecom. Prem. Serv.. supre,156F.3dat pp. 435-438'" Murph), Lanier,supra,204F.3d pp.913-915. v. at

5 6 7 3 9 l0 ll 12 l3 l4 l5 t6 17 18 19 20 Protection Act its properremedialconstruction, consistent with enforcement its provisions. of and hold Defendant accountable its unlawfulconduct. for DATED: Februarv 2008 5. By: /s/ ChadAustin CHAD AUSI-IN, Irsq.,Attorneyfor Plaintiff.JAMES M. KINDER Email: chadar-rstiulrr,rcox.ueI in this regardthat Defendant citcd no authorityfiom any Statccourt for its posilionthat therc has is no private right o1-action violations for o1-47 Cl.F.R. {64.1200. III. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above,Plaintiffrespectfully requests this Courtdeny that Defendant's Motion for PartialJudgment the Pleadings, give the Telephone on Consumer lt only stands reason to that,because Congress went out of its way to show deference to the way States choose handle[or not handle,if theydecideto opt oul of the I'CPA] 1'CPA to .ur.r, this Court shouldshow deference how Statecourtsfrom aroundthe country have to recognized privateright of actionfor violationsof the Codeof Federal a Regulations. is telling It

2l 22
L)

24 25 26 27 28
C A S E O ,0 7C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B ) N