Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

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

Document 17

Filed 01/08/2008

Page 1 of 7

. 1 2 , , 5 6 7 8 9 l0 II t2
l-)

Chad Austin, Esq.SBN235457 ztzg IndiaSireet S a n i e coC A 9 2 1 0 3 -6 0 14 D . Telepho"ne: 297-8888 (619) (619) Facsimile: 295-1401 Attorney Plaintiff, for JAMESM. KINDER,anindividual

UNITEDSTATE,S DISTRICTCOT]RT SOUTHERN DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA

JAMESM. KINDER,
Plaintifl, v'

Case 07 CV 2132 No. DM S( A.r l l )
.ludge: llon. [)anaM. Sabraw Mag..fudgc: Ilorr.Arrthony l]attaglia .1. PLAINTIFF .IAMESM. KINDER'S O P P O S I T I O NT O D E F E N D A N T ' S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JTJDGMENT ON THB PLEADINC]S; MEMORANDT]MIN ST]PPORT THEREOF 'Dale: : l'ime 22,2008 .lanuary l 0 : 3 0a . m . Couftroom: 10

14

l) 16 17 18 19 20 2I
aa 'LL

NAl'lONWlDE RECOVERY SYS'l'lrMS. LTD. andDOES1 through 100. inclusive.
Defendants.

I. INTRODUCTION

TO THE COURT. ALL PARTIES AND TI IEIRATTORNEYS REC]ORD: OF. PLEASE
TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff JAMES M. KINDER herebyopposes Defendant NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SYSTEMS.LTD.'s Motion for Partial.ludgment the Pleadinss. on

24 25
26

for the reasons forth below. set
// t/ /t

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

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

Document 17

Filed 01/08/2008

Page 2 of 7

1

,

II. ARGUMENT
A. IN ORDER FOR THE TCPA TO HAVE ANY EFFECT, THIS COURT MUST FIND THAT THERE IS A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS (bxl) ANp 47 c.F.R. Q61.1200 oF 47 C.F.R.964.1200 (bX2) 1. Defendant'sInterpretation Of The Statutory SchemcllncouragesViolations Of The Telephone ConsumerProtection Act ITCPAI And 47 C.F.R. RendersThe TCPA Entirely Ineffective And Makes It EasierFor $64.1200' TCPA Violators To EscapeLiabilify.

z

-)
+
A

a

5 6 7 8 9 l0

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act. in additionto othcr laws was passed address to a nationalepidemicof out of controlautodialcrs deceptivc prcrccorded artificialvoicc and and messages invaded privacyof millions of Americans that the cachday. In lr(iC Iteportand Order

165,the F'CCnotedthat "Congress 1 1 03-153,paragraph lbund thal automatcd prcrecorded or 'l'he 1 2 telephone callswere a...nuisance" an "invasionof privacy." and Commissionfurthernoted l3 that telemarketing callshad increased from about l8 million pcr day in the [JnitedStatcs l99l, in

14 l5 l6
to approximately million perdayin the LJnited 104 Statcs 2003. Thc prolifcration in ol'invasivc prcrecorded artilicial voicc callsin thc IJnitcdStatcs and offensiveautodialed, and causcd

t 7 Congress passthe Telephone to Consumer Protection of 199| . Pursuant the ameliorativc Act to l8 l9 20 2l 22
:J

goalspursued Congress by when it passed l'CPA, the FCIC the adopted numbero1a Regulations relatedtheretoto further thosesamelaudablesoals.

Among the Regulations adopted the FCC to enhance by the (b) (b) C.F'.R. $64.1200 (1) and47C.F.R.$64.1200 (2).

'I'CPA's ell-ect were47

'lhose require regulations that,anytime

24 25

a personor entitymakesa prerecorded artificialvoicemessage or call, the beginningof the message must give the propernameof the personor entitymakingthe call and.duringor after

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 17

Filed 01/08/2008

Page 3 of 7

, 2 3 4 5 6 , 8 9 l0 ll -

the message, person entitymustleaveits telephone the (b) or number.47 C.F.R.g64.1200 (1); (b) 47 C.F.R. $64.1200 (2), respectively. The reasons theserequirements clear. The fbr are Regulations wereadopted that unscrupulous so scofflaws disseminating thousands callsto of innocentconsumers would be identifiable.If it werenot for thcserer.rulations. collection agencies telemarketers and could disseminate constant a tidal wave ol'anonymously autodialcd andprerecorded/arliflcial voice callsto thousands innoccntconsumcrs of without consequencc, just as they did prior to enactment the 'I'CPA. 'l'his is because. of when a'I'CPA violatorlails to l.uu" its nameor telephone number,it is much more difflcult. if not impossible. victimsto fbr figure out who calledthem. Therefore, it werenot for 47 C.F.R.\64. 1200(b) ( I ) and47 if C.F.R.$64.1200 (2), (b) 'l'CPA 'l'Cll)A victimswould havealmostno way to suc lor violations

1)

,; t4
1 <

because wouldnotknowwhoto suc. they

rr

By giving TCPA victims a privateright of actionwith minimum statulory damages of madethe TCPA a consumer-fiiendly. victim-enforcing $500 per violation,Congress statute.The ideawasto makeit easyfor victimsto bringactions SmallClaimsCourt [or sirnilar in tribunals], without the needfor hiring an attorncy, rccoverstatutory to damages lbr'|'CI'A violations. Without47 C.l'.R.$64. 1200(b) ( I ) and47 C.F.R. {64.1 200 (b) (2), victimshavcrroway of

16 l7 l8 l9 20

2 1 knowtns who it is who hascalledthem because , therewould be no incentivefor'fCPA violators 22
to identif, themselves. UnderDefendant's construction the statutory of scheme, a collection all :"^ 24 25 26 27 28 its agency telemarketing firm would haveto do to avoid liability underthe TCPA is secret or identity. And, this couldbe doneat no economicrisk because thereis no privatcright of action requirements. Regulations identification for individualconsumers the Codeof Federal for 'l D C A S E O .0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N

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

Document 17

Filed 01/08/2008

Page 4 of 7

I
z
J

Defendant's construction the statutory of scheme totally emasculates C.F.R.{64.1200 47 (b) (1) and47 C.F.R.$64.1200 (2) and,consequently, TCPA. If TCPA victimshaveno (b) the private right of actionfor violations 47 C.F.R.$64.1 (b) ( 1) and47 C.F.R.{64.I 200 (b) of 200 (2), thoseregulations cease haveany effect. This. in turn. means to that the'l'CPA hasno clTect because TCPA violatorscangleefullycontinue with their clandesline. on liaudulentand practices, abhorrent laughing the way to the bank because they haveto do to avoid civil all all

4 5 6

8 9 10 ll 12

liability is not identifl'themselves. This absurdresultsurelywas not intended Congress, by which was attempting protectconsumers, makeit easier recreant to not for collectionagencies andtelemarketers illegallyinvade livesandhomes innoccnt to the o1Amcricans.Any suggcslion to the contraryby Def-endant in the lace o1'alllogic bccausc totally conlradicts purposc llies it thc

fbr concerns addrcsscd Congrcss by therein. 1 3 of the TCPA and showsno respect the prir,'acy

t4

Defendant'sinterpretation the TCPA therelbreis that il crealesa right without a remedy. of

1 5 which is completely antithetical the purpose the statute. to of 16 1l 18 19
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 Code of FederalRegulations.

Statecourtsin New Jersey, Colorado, Ohio, Missouriand SouthCarolinahaveall

20 determinedthat thereis a privateright of action for violationsof the technicaland proccdural 2l
1Z

Regulations. requirements with the TCPA found in the Codeof Federal associated

ZJ 'tA
LA

Mar.2l, 2005); Real\t()o. v. Klein,2005TCPA Rep.1353(N.J.Super. See, Sterling

TCPA Rep. I 135(Colo. Dist. Feb.24,2003); Lnc.,2002 2 5 McKennav. AccurateComp. Svcs.,

26 Bailev v. Drummond,2004 Inc. TCPA Rep. 1373(Colo.D.C. Dec. 29.2004);Mqthemaesthetics 27 28
N C A S E O .0 7C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B )

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

Document 17

Filed 01/08/2008

Page 5 of 7

I z
a J

v. LassiterMktg. Group,LLC,2002 TCPA Rep. 1061 (Clolo. Dist. June6,2002); Charvatv. Rvan,2006 TCPA Rep.1480(168Ohio App.3d78, 858N.E.2d845);Charvutv. Foley,2006 TCPA Rep. 1449(Ohio C.P.May 8, 2006);Charvatv. HealthCore I'lan of America,|nc.,2007 TCPA Rep. 1534(Ohio C.P.March 16.2007);Churvutv. Konuh Ind., L'f D. 2005 TCPA Rep. 1681(Ohio C.P.,Sep.13,2005);Charvatv. 7'clclvtics, LLC. 2006'I'CPARcp. 1488(2006Ohio 4623,Ohio App. 2006);Schrautv. Roclq Mtn. Reclumution, 2001 'I'CPA Rep. I 182(Mo. Cir.

4 5 6

8 9 10 ll t2 l3 14 15

'I'CPA Dec. 18,2007); Agostinelli Roberts v. Morts. Co..2002 Rep.1054(S.C.Magis.Mar.25,

2002).

3.

StateCourt Jurisdiction Of TCPA Matters Is ExclusiveAnd Therefore Deference ShouldBe Given To States'Courts'Construction The TCI'A Of And RelatedSections The Code Of FederalRegulations. Of

Althoughthis casewas removedto this Courl by Dcfcndant based grounds diversity on of of citizenship, was originally it filed in SanI)iegoSr.rperior Court. 'l'hat is becausc, although thc

created jurisdiction act, over'l'CI'Acascs exclusivc State is 1o courls. cxccpt, 1 6 TCPA is a federally

l 7 possibly,in situations diversityof citizenship.l 'l'helact that Statecourt.jurisdiction TCPA of of 1 8 mattersis exclusive obviousbased the plain language is on of the TCPA. "Private right of 19 20 2l
subsection the or an appropriatecourt of that State- (A) an actionbased a violationo1-this on

permitted the laws or rulesof court o{'a State, action * A personmay, if otherwise by bring in

prescribed addedlbr cmphasis.]47 underthis subsection..." [Bolding,underlining 22 regulations
/.J 1A
L1

(.bx3). u.s.c.Q227

25 26 27 28
date. he the in has a I Although Plaintiff notbrought Motionfor Remand thiscase, reserves rightto do soat a later ) 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 17

Filed 01/08/2008

Page 6 of 7

r I 2 3 4 5 _ 6 , g 9 l0 ll
1)

Moreover,it is well settledamongcourtsaroundthe United States that there is exclusive Statecourtjurisdictionover TCPA claimsbroughtunderthe privateright of action. "The legislative historyand purpose the TCPA support view that Congrcss of the intended confer to jurisdictionon statecourtsover privaterightsof action...Although exclusive ovcr lbrty statc legislatures enacted had measures restricting unsolicited telemarketing, thcsemeasures had limited effectbecause states not havejurisdictionover interstate do calls." I"oxhallReul\, Law Ofrces,Inc. v. Telecom. Prem.Serv.,(2d Cir. 1998)I 56 F. 3d 432. 437 .

"The TCPA is unusual thatit givesstate in courlsexclusivc.iurisdiction private over rightsof action[conferred l.ederal by law] and lirnits [I-]ederal court.jurisdiction civil aclionsto 1o enforcethe TCPA broughtby attorneys general the l"ederal or Communications Commission."

,;

1 4 K a u f m a n v A C SS ) t s t e mIs .c . ,l l 0 C a l . A p p . 4 " ' 8 8 6 . 8 9 7 . 2a l . R p t r . 3 d 2 9[6 i t i n g c h u l m u n v . . n C S c 15 t6 l7 l8 l9 20 2l exclusiveiurisdiction over a [private]cause actioncrcatcd a l-ederal of by' statutc[. the'l'CltA]." I d . [ c i t i n g u r p h e v v L u n i e r . ( 9 ' r ' C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) 2I0 . 3 d 9 l l . 9 l 5 . l " A p p a r e n t l y r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t M . .4 the exclusivityof state courtjurisdictioncould create problem.... a Congress avoidedany constitutional issueby refusing coercestates hearprivateTCPA actions, to providinginstead to permittedby the lau,,y rules o.f'court u,Vale.' bring that a personor entity may,'if otherv,ise or o.f court of that state...States retainthe ultimatedecision thus of n"n a TCPA actionin an appropriate l+ 25 26 2 2g whetherprivate TCPA actionswill be cognizablein their courts."' Intern. Science& Tech. Institute InacomComm., Cir.1997) v. 106F.3d I146, 1156-1158 14th [italicsadded.]."states 7 6 C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 r 3 2D M S( A J B ) N Chase Manhattan Bank (2000)268 A.D.2d 174.178.710 N.Y.S.2d368.371.1. "At leaslsix 'the somewhat federalcircuit courtshavereached unusual conclusion that statecoudshave

22

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

Document 17

Filed 01/08/2008

Page 7 of 7

, 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7 g 9 10 ll

havebeengiven,subjectto their consenl, jurisdictionover privale exclusive subject matter actionsauthorized the Telephone by Consumer Protection Act of 1991 Id at p.1 150 [italics ..." added];accord, Foxhall RealtvLaw Office, Inc. v. Telecom. Prem. Sen,..s u p r l . l 5 6 F . 3 da t p p . 435-438: Murph)tv. Lanier,supra,204F.3dat pp.9l:i-915.

lt only stands reason to that,because Congress went out of its way to show del-erence to the way States choose handle[or not hand]e. they decideto opt out of the TCPAI T'CPA to if cases, this Court shouldshow deference how Statecoul-ts to from aroundthe country have recognized privatcright of actionfbr violationsof the Codeo1'Fcdcral a ltegulations.It is telling in this regardthat Defbndant citcd no authorityfrom any Statccourt lbr its positionthat thcrc has is no private right of actionfbr violations 47 C.lr.R.$64.1200. of III. CONCLTJSION For all of the reasons stated above.Plaintiff respcctfully requests this Court deny that Defendant's Motion for PartialJudgment the Pleadings. give the Telcphone on Consumer Protection Act its properremedialconstruction, consistent with enfrrrcerlent its prclvisiclns, of and hold Defendant accountable its unlawfulconduct. fbr DA'IED: January 8.2008

t2
l3

t4
l) l6

t1
l8 l9 20

21 22
z)

By: /s/ ChadAustin
CIIAD AUS'l'lN.[rsq., Attorneyfor Plaintiff. JAMES M. KINDIIR Email: chadaristinii'r.;cor.net

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