Filed: Apr. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 23, 2012 No. 11-15513 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK D. C. Docket No. 0:10-cv-62435-JIC LYNNE M. BALTHAZOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, versus CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., SECURITY CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for th
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 23, 2012 No. 11-15513 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK D. C. Docket No. 0:10-cv-62435-JIC LYNNE M. BALTHAZOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, versus CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., SECURITY CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]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
No. 11-15513
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 0:10-cv-62435-JIC
LYNNE M. BALTHAZOR,
on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Counter
Defendant-Appellant,
versus
CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,
SECURITY CREDIT SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants-Counter
Claimants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(April 23, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court erred in
dismissing Lynne Balthazor’s (“Balthazor”) claim brought under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
We review a dismissal order based upon a lack of subject matter jurisdiction
de novo. McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t of Augusta-Richmond Cnty.,
501 F.3d
1244, 1250 (11th Cir. 2007).
Because the appellees confess error in this case due to the fact that the
United States Supreme Court in Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, ___ U.S. ___,
132 S. Ct. 740 (2012), now provides that federal courts have concurrent federal
question jurisdiction over private suits arising under the TCPA, we reverse the
judgment of dismissal of Balthazor’s TCPA claim against Central Credit Services,
Inc., and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2