Kevin Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., No. 13-2358 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 2, 2014.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2358 KEVIN M. LYNN, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MONARCH RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant -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 Amended: Decided: October 2, 2014 October 17, 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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. Michael C. Worsham, Forest Hill, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 Monarch s calls to Lynn. 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 using a message, deliver several rules of an 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
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.
