Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02418/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02418-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1

The pertinent language of 47 U.S.C.A. § 227(b) is: 

(3) Private right of action:

A person or entity may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State, bring

in an appropriate court of that State an action... 47 U.S.C.A. § 227(b)(3)(emphasis added).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Van E. Flury,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Customer Services Inc., et al,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-2418-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

Against Customer Services Inc. (Doc. 26) and Defendant Don Brady’s Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 27). 

Before the Court can address the pending motions, it must first determine the whether

this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff filed his Complaint,

asserting that jurisdiction is proper based on Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),

47 U.S.C.A. § 227. However, federal statutes, such as the TCPA do not automatically

confer subject matter jurisdiction to Federal Courts. It is well established in the Ninth Circuit,

that the TCPA vests state courts with exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under

section 227(b)(3)1

. See Dun-Rite Constr., Inc. v. Amazing Tickets, Inc., No. 04-3216, 2004

Case 2:07-cv-02418-SMM Document 30 Filed 05/09/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 2

Plaintiff filed his claims pursuant to section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.

- 2 -

WL 3239533, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2004) (“state courts' maintenance of exclusive

jurisdiction over private rights of action under the TCPA and federal courts' concomitant lack

of jurisdiction to hear such private claims [is] well-settled.”); Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F.3d

911, 913 (9th Cir.2000); ErieNet, Inc. v. Velocity Net, Inc., 156 F.3d 513, 520 (3d Cir.1998).

In Murphey v. Lanier, the Ninth Circuit concluded that state courts have exclusive

jurisdiction over a cause of action created specifically by section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.

2

Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F.3d 911, 915 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting International Science &

Technology Institute, Inc. V. Inacom Communications, Inc., 106 F.3d 1146,1150 (4th Cir.

1997)). In Murphey, the Ninth Circuit agreed with other circuits that had previously found

that Congress did not intend to grant federal district courts jurisdiction over private causes

of action under section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA. Id. at 913; see Int'l Sci., 106 F.3d at 1152.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims alleged under section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA do not confer

federal question jurisdiction on this Court. Plaintiff has not alleged that jurisdiction is proper

pursuant to any other federal statute or diversity jurisdiction.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DISMISSING this case without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Judgment Against Customer Services Inc. (Doc. 26) and Defendant Don Brady’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 27). 

DATED this 8th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02418-SMM Document 30 Filed 05/09/08 Page 2 of 2