Opinion ID: 612893
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages Under the OCSPA

Text: Charvat also alleges six counts of violations of the OCSPA from the thirty-three telephone calls. In five counts parallel to the five TCPA counts outlined above, he alleges that each violation of the TCPA is also a violation of Ohio Revised Code § 1345.02(A) (Counts Four, Five, Six, Nine, and Ten, respectively). He also alleges that, in thirty of the calls, Defendants failed to state at the beginning of the call that the purpose was to make a sale, in violation of the disclosure provisions in Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.) § 109:4-3-11(A)(1) [12] and/or 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d)(2), [13] and therefore in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 1345.02(A) (Count Eleven). He claims that he is entitled to statutory damages of $200 for each violation in each call, totaling $30,600. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1345.09(B). Charvat's OCSPA claims rely on his assertion that violations of the TCPA, O.A.C. § 109:4-3-11(A)(1), and 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d)(2), are also violations of Ohio Revised Code § 1345.02(A). R.20 (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 57 n.2, 78 n.3). For the first time on appeal, Defendants now argue that, pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Culbreath v. Golding Enterprises, L.L.C., 114 Ohio St.3d 357, 872 N.E.2d 284 (2007), simply sending an unsolicited communication that violates the TCPA does not, as a matter of law, constitute a violation of the CSPA. Appellee Br. at 10. Rather, Defendants argue, the unsolicited telephone call must be deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable. Defendants argue that Charvat has not alleged that the telephone calls were deceptive, unfair, or unconscionable. We agree that, under Culbreath, delivering a prerecorded message without prior express consent, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), is not, by itself, a violation of the OCSPA. See 872 N.E.2d at 291. We are, of course, bound by the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of Ohio law. The earlier Ohio Court of Common Pleas cases that Charvat cites in his complaint are insufficient, in light of Culbreath, to support Charvat's OCSPA claim relating to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A). See R.20 (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 57 n.2) (citing Compoli v. EIP Ltd., No. 446780, at 1-2 (Ohio Ct. C.P. July 1, 2002) (Ohio Att'y Gen. Pub. Insp. File (PIF) No. 085 [14] ); Chambers v. R & C Delivery, Inc., No. 437887, at 1 (Ohio Ct. C.P. May 1, 2002) (PIF No. 2088)). Count Four, therefore, fails to state a claim under the OCSPA. However, Charvat also alleges that, during the telephone calls, Defendants failed to provide their name and telephone number or address, failed to maintain a record of his previous request to be placed on a do-not-call list, and failed to honor his previous do-not-call request. As the cases cited by Charvat in his complaint indicate, R.20 (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 57 n.2), Ohio courts have found that these violations of the TCPA are unfair or deceptive practices under the OCSPA. See Charvat v. Cont'l Mortg. Servs., Inc., No. 99CVH12-10225, 2002 WL 1270183, at  (Ohio Ct.C.P. June 1, 2000) (PIF No. 1882). Charvat also alleges in Count Eleven that Defendants failed to state at the beginning of each call that the purpose of the call was to make a sale, in violation of O.A.C. § 109:4-3-11(A)(1) and/or 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d)(2). Charvat includes in his complaint decisions in which Ohio courts have found that violations of these regulations are unfair or deceptive practices under the OCSPA. See R.20 (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 78 n.3) (citing Ohio ex rel. Fisher v. Wykle, No. 90-1395, at 4 (Ohio Ct. C.P. Apr. 8, 1992) (PIF No. 1141); Ohio ex rel. Petro v. Craftmatic Org., Inc., No. 05-CVH-06-06060, at 13 (Ohio Ct. C.P. July 25, 2005) (PIF No. 2347)); Burdge v. Satellite Sys. Network, LLC, No. 2005 CV F 00243, at 2 (Fairfield, Ohio Mun. Ct. May 11, 2005) (PIF No. 2344). We therefore reject Defendants' argument that Charvat's pleadings with respect to Counts Five, Six, Nine, Ten, and Eleven are deficient under Culbreath. [15] The district court concluded that, although Charvat alleged multiple violations of the OCSPA, Charvat was limited to one recovery per telephone call. R.53 (Dist. Ct. Op. at 10) (citing Charvat v. GVN Mich., Inc., 531 F.Supp.2d 922, 928-29 (S.D.Ohio 2008), aff'd on other grounds, GVN Mich., 561 F.3d 623). We believe, however, that limiting recovery on a percall basis is too narrow of a view of the OCSPA. Ohio courts have limited the recovery of statutory damages when multiple violations occur in the same transaction or cause the same injury. See Charvat v. Ryan, 168 Ohio App.3d 78, 858 N.E.2d 845, 856 (2006), overruled on other grounds, 116 Ohio St.3d 394, 879 N.E.2d 765 (2007); Ferrari v. Howard, No. 77654, 2002 WL 1500414, at  (Ohio Ct.App. July 11, 2002); Crye v. Smolak, 110 Ohio App.3d 504, 674 N.E.2d 779, 784-85 (1996); Couto v. Gibson, Inc., No. 1475, 1992 WL 37800, at  (Ohio Ct.App. Feb. 26, 1992) (unpublished decision); Eckman v. Columbia Oldsmobile, Inc., 65 Ohio App.3d 719, 585 N.E.2d 451, 452 (1989). The Ohio Court of Appeals has explained that where a supplier is found to have engaged in acts that constitute violations of separate rules or court rulings interpreting [Ohio Revised Code] 1345.02 or 1345.03, the consumer is entitled to $200 per violation or his or her actual damages for each violation, whichever is greater. This does not, however, preclude a court from finding that the facts are such that only one act occurred that resulted in only one violation or, ... that two rules are so similar as applied to the facts that only one violation is found. Crye, 674 N.E.2d at 784-85. In Ryan, 858 N.E.2d 845, the Ohio Court of Appeals analyzed whether separate violations of the TCPA each constitute remediable violations of the OCSPA. The Ohio court concluded that the technical standards for automated calls in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(b)(1) and (2)  which require disclosure of the name and telephone number of the caller, respectively  are both directed at preventing the same harm, to wit, rendering the called party without means to contact the caller in order to stop future violative calls. Ryan, 858 N.E.2d at 856. In other words, violations of these two regulations in fact cause[] a single injury. Id. The plaintiff therefore was entitled to only one award of $200 for both violations. Id. at 856-57. The Ohio court also held that the failure to maintain a written policy for maintaining a do-not-call-list, as required under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1), cause[s] a separate and distinct harm from violations of the technical standards in § 64.1200(b)(1) and (2), therefore supporting a separate damage award. Ryan, 858 N.E.2d at 857. Applying the Ryan court's analysis of Ohio law, we conclude that Charvat is entitled to three separate damage awards under the OCSPA for the alleged violations. The alleged TCPA violations related to Defendants' failure to disclose their name and contact information (Counts Five and Six) caused the single injury of preventing Charvat from contacting Defendants to prevent future calls. Defendants' failure to maintain a record of Charvat's do-not-call request and failure to honor his request (Counts Nine and Ten) also caused a single injury  Charvat's receipt of calls after requesting to be placed on the do-not-call list. The two injuries, however, are separate and distinct, and Charvat therefore is entitled to separate damage awards for both injuries. Additionally, the disclosure provisions in O.A.C. § 109:4-3-11(A)(1) and 16 C.F.R. § 310.4(d)(2) are directed at a third distinct harm  deceiving the caller about the purpose of the call. Thus, Charvat is entitled to a separate damage award under the OCSPA for Count Eleven. Because the alleged OCSPA violations caused three separate injuries, Charvat can recover three separate damages awards for the calls. Charvat therefore can recover a maximum total of $18,200 for his claims brought pursuant to the OCSPA: $6200 for the thirty-one calls in which Defendants failed to provide both their name and contact information, $6000 for the thirty calls in which Defendants failed to maintain a record of Charvat's do-not-call request and failed to honor the request, and $6000 for the thirty calls in which Defendants failed to state at the beginning of each call that the purpose of the call was to make a sale.