Opinion ID: 807503
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Desty

Text: Desty filed a complaint on January 27, 2011, alleging that Collection Information Bureau, Inc. (CIB) repeatedly left automated voice mail messages on her cellular phone. The caller identified himself as “Ted Lee” and stated that he had an “important message” for her and that he “must speak with [her] as soon as possible regarding [her] account number.” Desty alleged CIB failed to meaningfully disclose its identity, purpose for calling, or identify itself as a debt collector as required by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d(6) and 1692e(11). She also alleged CIB caused her “telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously with the intent to annoy, abuse or harass in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d(5),” and used an automated dialer to repeatedly call her cellular phone in a manner “the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse” in violation of 15 U.S.C. 7 Case: 11-12413 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 8 of 14 § 1692d.6 The complaint requested statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, as well as judgment in her favor and against CIB. On March 7, 2011, CIB offered via e-mail to settle Desty’s case for $1,001, “plus reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.” The e-mail stated that if the parties were “unable to reach an agreement as to the amount of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs,” CIB would “submit the issues of fees and costs to the Court to decide.” When Desty did not respond to the offer, CIB moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The district court granted CIB’s motion in an order virtually identical to the orders in Zinni and Dellapietro. 6 Desty also alleged violations of the FCCPA, as well as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227. The district court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Desty’s FCCPA claim, and dismissed Desty’s TCPA claim for lack of jurisdiction. Although Desty does not challenge the dismissal of her TCPA claim on appeal, we note the Supreme Court has recently overruled this Court’s prior precedent on which the district court relied, holding “that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the TCPA.” Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 740, 745 (2012), overruling Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 421 F. Appx. 920, 921 (11th Cir. 2010). Thus, we sua sponte reverse the district court’s dismissal of Desty’s TCPA claim. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1275 (11th Cir. 2012) (“We have an independent obligation to determine whether jurisdiction exists in each case before us, so we may consider questions of jurisdiction sua sponte even when, as here, the parties have not raised jurisdictional challenges.”). 8 Case: 11-12413 Date Filed: 08/27/2012 Page: 9 of 14