St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., No. 17-1794 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseUnder the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Nomax violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by transmitting twelve advertisements to the Heart Center by fax without including a proper opt-in notice on each advertisement. The court held that Heart Center lacked Article III standing, but that the proper disposition was remand to state court under section 1447(c). Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions to return the case to state court.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Benton and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff did not show that its alleged injury is traceable to defendant's alleged failure to provide a technically compliant opt-out notice in its faxes, and the district court did not err in determining plaintiff lacked Article III standing; however, the district court should have remanded this removed matter to state court rather than dismissing it.
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.