Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02912/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02912-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ameriguard
Appellant
University of Kansas Medical Center Research Institute
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2912

___________

Ameriguard, Inc., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

*

University of Kansas Medical Center * [UNPUBLISHED]

Research Institute, Inc., *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 12, 2007

Filed: March 15, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ameriguard, Inc., appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of its Telephone

Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, complaint against University

of Kansas Medical Center Research Institute, Inc., (“Institute”). 

Appellate Case: 06-2912 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2007 Entry ID: 3288676
-2-

Ameriguard alleged that the Institute violated the TCPA by sending an

“unsolicited advertisement” via telephone facsimile machines and attached a copy of

the facsimile to its complaint as an exhibit. The complaint was initially filed in

Missouri state court but was removed by the Institute to federal court. Following

removal, the Institute filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) alleging that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief could be granted because the attached facsimile did not meet

the statutory definition of an “unsolicited advertisement.” 

The TCPA provides that an “unsolicited advertisement” is “any material

advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services

which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express invitation or

permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5) (2005). Applying the

definition set forth in the TCPA, the district court found that the facsimile did not

meet the definition of an “unsolicited advertisement” and granted the motion to

dismiss.

Having carefully reviewed the record, see Quinn v. Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB, 470

F.3d 1240, 1244 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (de novo standard of review), we agree

with the district court that Ameriguard failed to state a claim upon which relief could

be granted because the facsimile attached to the complaint does not constitute an

“unsolicited advertisement” pursuant to the TCPA. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5)

(defining unsolicited advertisement); Abels v. Farmers Commodities Corp., 259 F.3d

910, 921 (8th Cir. 2001) (materials attached to the complaint may be considered when

ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2912 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2007 Entry ID: 3288676