Marcus D. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, No. 11-12077 (11th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 23, 2012 JOHN LEY CLERK 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 PER CURIAM: In our prior decision, Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, 421 F. App x 920 (11th Cir. 2010) (unpublished), we applied our binding precedent holding that Congress had granted state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private actions under the Telephone Consumer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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.