Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02550/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02550-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Judd Brazer
Defendant
Amin El-Gazzar
Defendant
Pasquale Giordano
Defendant
Steven T. Kirsch
Plaintiff
Vision Lab Telecommunications, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN T. KIRSCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

VISION LAB TELECOMMUNICATIONS,

INC., a Florida corporation; AMIN ELGAZZAR; PASQUALE GIORDANO; and

JUDD BRAZER

Defendants. _______________________________________

No. C 05-2550 SBA

 

ORDER

[Docket Nos. 49, 50 & 70]

Currently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) brought by all Defendants in the above-captioned matter ("Rule

12(b)(6) Motion"); the Individual Defendants Amin El-Gazzar's, Pasquale Giordano's and Judd

Brazer's Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ("Rule 12(b)(2)

Motion"); and Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Continuance of Hearing on the Rule 12(b)(2)

Motions of Pasquale Giordano and Amin El-Gazzar. Having read and considered all the papers filed

in connection with these motions, the arguments advanced by the parties at the hearing, and being

fully informed, the Court makes the following findings and orders.

Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Continuance of Hearing on the Rule 12(b)(2) Motions of

Pasquale Giordano and Amin El-Gazzar was DENIED. The hearing went forward as scheduled by

the Court. 

The Court finds that it would benefit from supplemental briefing from the parties regarding

whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims arising under the Telephone Consumer

Case 4:05-cv-02550-SBA Document 80 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

2

Protection Act ("TCPA"), Plaintiff's first cause of action. In Murphy v. Lanier, the Ninth Circuit held

that there is no private cause of action in federal court under the TCPA. 204 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.

2000). The Murphy court reviewed the section of the TCPA that grants consumers a private right of

action, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(C), which states in relevant part: "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 based on a violation of subsection 227(b) or the regulations prescribed under that subsection. 

47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit held "[b]ecause federal court

jurisdiction is limited to that conferred by Congress, the express reference to state court jurisdiction

does not mean that federal jurisdiction also exists; instead, the failure to provide for federal

jurisdiction indicates that there is none." Murphy, 204 F.3d at 914. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit

has joined the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits "in the somewhat unusual

conclusion that state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a cause of action created by a federal

statute, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991." Id. at 915. 

The language of the Ninth Circuit's holding is not specifically limited to federal question

jurisdiction, though this was the basis upon which the plaintiff in the underlying case asserted

subject matter jurisdiction. The Court's own limited research yielded authority demonstrating

federal district courts disagree whether claims under the TCPA may be brought in federal court

where the litigants allege diversity subject matter jurisdiction. Given the importance of this issue,

and the Court's obligation to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists as a predicate matter, the

parties are ordered to file supplemental briefing which addresses the Ninth Circuit's holding in

Murphy and demonstrate why subject matter does or does not exist in this case. 

On January 27, 2006, this case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for an early settlement

conference to be held on February 15, 2006, February 28, 2006, March 1, 2006 or March 6, 2006. In

light of the fact that the settlement conference will necessarily be concluded by March 6, 2006, if the

parties are unable to reach a settlement, the Court orders the parties as follows:

Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief, no longer than ten (10) pages, addressing the issue of

subject matter jurisdiction as directed above no later than March 27, 2006. Defendants shall file an

opposition in response to Plaintiff's supplemental brief, no longer than ten (10) pages, on or before

Case 4:05-cv-02550-SBA Document 80 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

3

April 3, 2006. Plaintiff shall file his reply, if any, by April 10, 2006. The Court hereby schedules a

hearing date on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction of April 18, 2006. 

If the Court determines it does have jurisdiction to hear this case in diversity, then the Court

will permit the parties to conduct limited discovery on the issue of specific personal jurisdiction

only. The parties shall have five weeks from the date of the Court's order resolving the issue of

subject matter jurisdiction to conduct this limited discovery. The Court shall defer issuing a ruling

regarding Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b)(2) motions until the limited discovery on the

issue of specific personal jurisdiction has been completed. After such time, the Court shall consider

the matter fully submitted and will not require further oral argument. 

The Case Management Conference in this case is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: 2/6/06 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02550-SBA Document 80 Filed 02/08/06 Page 3 of 3