Marcus D. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC

468 F. App'x 936
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedApril 23, 2012
Docket11-12077
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 468 F. App'x 936 (Marcus D. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marcus D. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 468 F. App'x 936 (11th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PER CURIAM:

In our prior decision, Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 421 Fed.Appx. 920 (11th Cir.2010) (unpublished), we applied our binding precedent holding that Congress had granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over those lawsuits. See Nicholson v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc., 136 F.3d 1287, 1288-89 (11th Cir.1998), abrogated by Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 740, 181 L.Ed.2d 881 (2012). Because we were bound by that precedent, we affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Mims’ complaint, which alleged that Arrow Financial Services, LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. See Mims, 421 Fed.Appx. at 921.

The Supreme Court reversed our judgment in the Mims case and remanded it to us. Mims, 132 S.Ct. at 753. In its Mims decision the Supreme Court held *937 “that Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private TCPA suits,” id. at 747, and that “federal law gives rise to the claim for relief Mims has stated and specifies the substantive rules of decision,” id. at 753. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the district court’s judgment dismissing Mims’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
468 F. App'x 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-d-mims-v-arrow-financial-services-llc-ca11-2012.