Kevin Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, I
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-02824-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999447716]. Mailed to: Lynn. [13-2358]
Appeal: 13-2358
Doc: 26
Filed: 10/02/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2358
KEVIN M. LYNN,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:11-cv-02824-WDQ)
Submitted:
August 29, 2014
Decided:
October 2, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael David Alltmont, Bryan Christopher Shartle, SESSIONS
FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, Metairie, Louisiana, for Appellant.
Kevin M. Lynn, Appellee Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-2358
Doc: 26
Filed: 10/02/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. (“Monarch”), a debt
collection
summary
company,
judgment
violated
the
appeals
to
Kevin
Telephone
the
district
Lynn
on
Consumer
his
court’s
claim
Protection
Act
grant
that
of
Monarch
(“TCPA”),
47
U.S.C.A. § 227 (West 2001 & Supp. 2013), when it called his home
phone numerous times using an automatic telephone dialing system
(“ATDS”). *
Although Lynn was charged individually for each of
Monarch’s calls, Monarch argues that the district court erred in
finding that it violated the TCPA.
Because our de novo review
leads us to conclude that the district court did not err, we
affirm.
See Broughman v. Carver, 624 F.3d 670, 674 (4th Cir.
2010) (stating standard of review).
The
TCPA
specifically
prohibits
“mak[ing]
any
call
. . . using any [ATDS] or an artificial or prerecorded voice
. . . to any telephone number assigned to a paging service,
cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or
other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the
called
party
is
§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)
that
the
charged
for
the
(“call-charged
call-charged
provision’s
*
call[.]”
provision”).
plain
language
47
U.S.C.A.
We
conclude
encompasses
For a discussion of the practices prohibited by the TCPA,
see Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740, 745
(2012).
2
Appeal: 13-2358
Doc: 26
Filed: 10/02/2014
Monarch’s calls to Lynn.
Pg: 3 of 3
Cf. Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.,
746 F.3d 1242, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2014).
Monarch’s
attempt
to
escape
the
clear
Moreover, we reject
breadth
of
the
call-
charged provision by relying on the FCC’s regulation excepting
debt collectors from the TCPA’s separate prohibition on “call[s]
to
any
residential
prerecorded
voice
227(b)(1)(B),
and
telephone
to
line
deliver
several
a
rules
using
an
message,”
of
artificial
47
statutory
U.S.C.A.
or
§
interpretation.
See United States ex rel. Oberg v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance
Agency,
745
F.3d
131,
144
n.6
(4th
Cir.
2014).
Indeed,
Congress’ purpose in enacting the TCPA advises against Monarch’s
effort to limit its liability.
See Clodfelter v. Republic of
Sudan, 720 F.3d 199, 211 (4th Cir. 2013); Broughman, 624 F.3d at
677;
see
also
In
the
Matter
of
Rules
and
Regulations
Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd.
14041,
14092
(2003)
(explaining
Congress’
intent
in
enacting
call-charged provision).
Accordingly, we affirm the grant of summary judgment
to Lynn.
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
conclusions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?