Kamisha Stanton v. Cash Advance Centers, Inc, No. 22-1466 (8th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Plaintiff brought a putative class action against Cash Advance Centers, Inc., alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Counsel purporting to represent Cash Advance Centers, Inc., moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration provisions contained in loan agreements between Plaintiff and non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc. The district court denied the motion to compel. Counsel also moved to substitute Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., for Cash Advance Centers, Inc., as the party defendant, but the district court denied that motion as well.

 The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained only parties to a lawsuit may appeal an adverse judgment. Because Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., is not a party to the lawsuit, its notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court. The non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., made no appearance in connection with the motion, and the court’s order addressed only a motion advanced by the party Defendant. The notice of appeal also names Cash Advance Centers, Inc., the party Defendant, as an appellant. But while attorneys purporting to represent Cash Advance Centers, Inc., filed a notice of appeal, counsel acknowledged at oral argument that she represented only non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., and not Cash Advance Centers, Inc.

Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Shepherd and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the sole notice of appeal was filed by attorneys who represented an entity that was not a party to the lawsuit and who did not have authority to file the notice of appeal on any party's behalf.

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-1466 ___________________________ Kamisha Stanton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Cash Advance Centers, Inc., a Delaware corporation, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: November 15, 2022 Filed: February 7, 2023 ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. Kamisha Stanton brought a putative class action against Cash Advance Centers, Inc., alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227. Counsel purporting to represent Cash Advance Centers, Inc., moved to compel arbitration based on arbitration provisions contained in loan agreements between Stanton and non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc. The district court denied the motion to compel. Counsel also moved to substitute Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., for Cash Advance Centers, Inc., as the party defendant, but the district court denied that motion as well. A notice of appeal was docketed to appeal the district court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(A)-(B). The notice of appeal purportedly was filed by “attorneys for defendant Cash Advance Centers, Inc. and Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc.” At oral argument, however, counsel for appellant clarified that she represents only non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., and does not represent the party defendant Cash Advance Centers, Inc. Given this unusual procedural posture, we must consider whether the court has jurisdiction over the appeal. Only parties to a lawsuit may appeal an adverse judgment. Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988) (per curiam). The federal rules of procedure reflect this principle by requiring that the notice of appeal specify the party or parties appealing by naming each one in the caption or body of the notice. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). Compliance with Rule 3(c) “is a jurisdictional prerequisite.” Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 315-18 (1988); Newcomb v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 999 F.3d 1134, 1137 (8th Cir. 2021). Because Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., is not a party to the lawsuit, its notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court. We have recognized limited exceptions to the rule that only parties to a lawsuit may appeal, but none of the recognized exceptions is applicable here. See Indep. Fed’n of Flight Attendants v. Cooper, 134 F.3d 917, 919 (8th Cir. 1998) (allowing appeal by a non-party subject to a civil contempt order); Curtis v. City of Des Moines, 995 F.2d 125, 128 (8th Cir. 1993) (allowing appeal by non-parties who were “privy to the record” where district court heard arguments by non-parties and included nonparties in the style of the final order denying their claims); Thompson v. Freeman, -2`- 648 F.2d 1144, 1147 n.5 (8th Cir. 1981) (allowing appeal by a non-party of an injunction that purports to bind it). In this case, the motion to compel arbitration was purportedly filed only by Cash Advance Centers, Inc. The non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., made no appearance in connection with the motion, and the court’s order addressed only a motion advanced by the party defendant. The notice of appeal also names Cash Advance Centers, Inc., the party defendant, as an appellant. But while attorneys purporting to represent Cash Advance Centers, Inc., filed a notice of appeal, counsel acknowledged at oral argument that she represented only non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc., and not Cash Advance Centers, Inc. The answer to Stanton’s complaint similarly lists the attorneys who filed the notice of appeal as counsel for non-party Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc. The answer asserts that Cash Advance Centers, Inc., was “improperly identified” in the complaint. The appellant’s briefs contain similar language. No person has the right to appear as an entity’s attorney without the entity’s authority. Pueblo of Santa Rosa v. Fall, 273 U.S. 315, 319-20 (1927); Indus. Indem. Co. v. Harms, 28 F.3d. 761, 762 (8th Cir. 1994). An appeal taken by someone unauthorized to do so should be dismissed. See J.J. Rissell, Allentown, PA Tr. v. Marchelos, 976 F.3d 1233, 1236 (11th Cir. 2020); United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467, 577-78 (5th Cir. 2011); Dep’t of Water & Power v. Anderson, 95 F.2d 577, 580 (9th Cir. 1938). Because the attorneys who filed the notice of appeal on behalf of Cash Advance Centers, Inc., concededly did not represent that party, the notice of appeal was unauthorized and invalid. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d at 578. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Stanton’s motion to strike is denied as moot. ______________________________ -3`-

Primary Holding

The Eighth Circuit dismissed Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc.’s (Advance America) motion compelling arbitration of Plaintiff’s claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court held that because Advance America is not a party to the lawsuit, its notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.