Marcus D. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 23, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 10-12077
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-22347-UU
MARCUS D. MIMS,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 23, 2012)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES
Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 2 --

In our prior decision, Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 421 F.
App’x 920 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished), we applied our binding precedent
holding that Congress had granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private
actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and that
federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over those lawsuits. See Nicholson
v. Hooters of Augusta, Inc., 136 F.3d 1287, 1288–89 (11th Cir. 1998), abrogated
by Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 740 (2012). Because
we were bound by that precedent, we affirmed the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Mims’ complaint, which alleged
that Arrow Financial Services, LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. See Mims, 421 F. App’x at 921.
The Supreme Court reversed our judgment in the Mims case and remanded
it to us. Mims, 132 S.Ct. at 753. In its Mims decision the Supreme Court held
“that Congress did not deprive federal courts of federal-question jurisdiction over
private TCPA suits,” id. at 747, and that “federal law gives rise to the claim for
relief Mims has stated and specifies the substantive rules of decision,” id. at 753.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the district court’s judgment dismissing
Mims’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is REVERSED and the
case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2

-- 2 of 2 --