Court Opinion

ID: 9379847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 17:00:47.256377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.289595
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 16 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH MOSER, dba Marketing Support No. 21-70099
Systems,
                                     FCC No. EB-TCD-18-00028267
          Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,

                Respondents.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                      Federal Communications Commission

                            Submitted March 16, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, D. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Kenneth Moser seeks review of a forfeiture order issued by the Federal

Communications Commission (“FCC”), holding that Moser, doing business as

Marketing Support Systems, violated the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, 47 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 227(e), by conducting a large-scale robocalling campaign using false caller

identification information to display a number belonging to a business rival. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

       The district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the petition because Moser

seeks to avoid enforcement of a forfeiture order. See 47 U.S.C. § 504(a) (“The

forfeitures provided for in this chapter . . . shall be recoverable . . . in a civil suit in

the name of the United States brought in the district where the person or carrier has

its principal operating office[.]”); Dougan v. F.C.C., 21 F.3d 1488, 1491 (9th Cir.

1994) (“We hold that 47 U.S.C. § section 504(a) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the

district courts to hear enforcement suits by the government, and suits by private

individuals seeking to avoid enforcement.”).

       DISMISSED.

                                             2