Case ID: f-appx_475/html/0716-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lynne M. BALTHAZOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Security Credit Services, LLC, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.
    No. 11-15513
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 23, 2012.
    
      Donald A. Yarbrough, Donald A. Yar-brough, Esq., for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant.
    Susan H. Aprill, John Spencer Graham, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appel-lees.
    Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing Lynne Balthazor’s (“Balthazor”) claim brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

We review a dismissal order based upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t of Augusta-Richmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1250 (11th Cir.2007).

Because the appellees confess error in this case due to the fact that the United States Supreme Court in Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 740, 181 L.Ed.2d 881 (2012), now provides that federal courts have concurrent federal question jurisdiction over private suits arising under the TCPA, we reverse the judgment of dismissal of Balthazor’s TCPA claim against Central Credit Services, Inc., and remand this ease for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.