Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206173/State-of-Maryland-v-Universal-Elections-Incorporated-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:37:38+00:00

Document:
On the cover sheet, page 2, attorney information section -the name Lindsey Powell is substituted for the name Mark R.
Freeman as counsel arguing for Appellees, and the name Mark R.
Freeman is added as counsel on brief for the United States.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Publish is granted.
to read Affirmed by published opinion.
opinions as precedent is deleted.
replaced with NORTON, District Judge.
in which Judge King and Judge Agee joined.
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
district courts decision in all respects.
summary judgment order, we briefly restate them here.
their work for the Ehrlich campaign.
OMalley and President Obama have been successful.
Our goals have been met.
tonight. Congratulations and thank you.
Maryland Democratic voters, to the website of a Pennsylvaniabased automatic dialing service called Robodial.org, LLC.
robocall to the phone numbers included on the uploaded lists.
voters received the entire message.
recipients received part of the message.
calls failed or went unanswered.
Ehrlich campaign as the sponsor of the election night robocall.
motion to stay after denying the motion to dismiss.
stay as filed is overbroad and is Denied.
J.A. 148 (emphasis and capitalization in original).
On March 15, 2012, the State moved for summary judgment.
unopposed motion on May 29, 2012.
this court may award under the TCPA.
amount of $1,000,000 against Henson and Universal Elections.
appeal on June 22, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
dismiss, Brockington v. Boykins, 637 F.3d 503, 505 (4th Cir.
judgment, Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 562 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir.
Health Servs., Inc. v. Maryland, 411 F.3d 457, 464 (4th Cir.
granting summary judgment in favor of the State.
speech that cannot withstand strict scrutiny.
Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994).
Russell does not appeal the district courts ruling.
the phone call and provide that entitys telephone number.
U.S.C. 227(d)(1), (3)(A); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(b) (2008).
any more than any other person or group placing robocalls.
district court properly determined that the TCPA is a contentneutral law to which intermediate scrutiny must be applied.
furthers an important or substantial governmental interest . . .
Turner, 512 U.S. at 662.
caller to stop future calls.
process is entitled to protect).
themselves and a phone number at which they can be reached.
whom they wish to speak to on a particular evening).
to better evaluate the content and veracity of the message.
narrowly tailored to protect citizens from fraud.
transmit their name and phone number to caller ID services).
two identification requirements for prerecorded messages . . .
necessary to protect those interests.
present a comprehensible argument to the contrary.
identity disclosure provisions are constitutional.
arguments made in their December 2011 motion to dismiss.
success that they received in the district court.
robocall was received by any Maryland citizen.
than 112,000 Maryland residents chosen by Defendants.
citizens and that Maryland citizens received the call.
phone call recipients by name.
scope and applicability of the TCPA.
artificial or prerecorded telephone messages).
can be sued under the Act.
against any person who violates the Act.
Tel. Co. v. Hot Leads Co., 584 F. Supp. 2d 736, 745 (D. Md.
for TCPA violations); Texas v. Am. Blastfax, Inc., 164 F. Supp.
2d 892, 898 (W.D. Tex. 2001) (same); Covington & Burling v.
at *6 (D.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 17, 2003) (same).
prescribed under this subsection . . . or to use any . . .
not joined as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.
inconsistent obligations because of the interest.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B).
their motion to dismiss should have been granted.
of partially parallel criminal proceedings.
for counsel, and for litigants.
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.
F.R.D. 527, 530 (S.D. W. Va. 2005).
granted before an indictment has issued.
(D.N.J. 1998)); In re Par Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 133 F.R.D.
of any facts or legal argument.
therefore not an abuse of the courts discretion.
as it was obligated to do.
F.3d 410, 416 (4th Cir. 1993)) (emphasis in original).
the sponsor could be reached.
not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the State.
district judge in all respects.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.