Compressor Engineering Corp v. Manfacturers Financial, et al, No. 10-2072 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0767n.06 No. 10-2072 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Compressor Engineering Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Manufacturers Financial, Charity Marketing LLC, and Richard K. Stephens, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Nov 15, 2011 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BEFORE: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the district court s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Compressor Engineering Corporation brought a claim in federal court under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ( TCPA ), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), which provides for a private right of action in state court. Intervening precedent from this court compels the conclusion that there was federal-question jurisdiction in this case. Compressor Engineering Corporation brought suit in federal court after defendants Manufacturers Financial Corporation and Charity Marketing LLC allegedly sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements to Compressor Engineering and at least 39 others. Compressor Engineering did not have an established business relationship with either defendant, and did not give either defendant permission to send Compressor Engineering advertisements by fax. There is no diversity of citizenship between the parties. Compressor Engineering argued that the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the TCPA, a federal statute. The district court followed the vast majority of federal courts to address this question, as well as an unpublished opinion from this court, Dun-Rite Construction, Inc. v. Amazing Tickets, Inc., No. 04-3216, 2004 WL 3239533 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2004), to hold that the TCPA is not a sufficient basis for federal-question jurisdiction. In a recent published opinion, this court decided squarely that a district court ha[s] federalquestion jurisdiction over the claims under the Telephone Act[.] Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 630 F.3d 459, 463 (6th Cir. 2010), Charvat controls the resolution of this appeal, and no other issues are presented. We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings.
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.
