ÿWPCoJ •’?÷Ǹ:=Æj^·¼m Ξ£ÚŒÕ ð /´Æþ£AQG %U}ÒÇ#W£b)è¦/üdS©ï« '’²Ø¹ò÷ŒœqòŒËß·éŠ?÷ yQ&Ô@÷J*Öj°YúXÍäéê¶DŽç„»ZëT¯•þœx@ÎG„ÚÖÎeZ¯–Å.¶À%·é¼t*>c¾éÚõ]ïm£cùð»-’½{ ¾MAß‘iÝ«E#@çVÙTYGx”Ú÷ƒ¾Ú‘#T+Á-È€–¢7XUÔ÷ ÔI˜\€ó|²…Í¢âx„Ž.§fáà”IâñP<ÝÆÉf_ÕWâ3þ `úº9먕˜Øz~ n·6Ù”FýX²ƒ²5ïyíÁf¾¤X+£:*Bé²Úžäfx`Õ¾=æn~ þ vxø;€܈_mì'&$íîÎkòÜV}Ïxqg­†Ù£š+¼¦ùbþœLs )—‘$SVg9ôeÌG6N >c#u/1s¿äHâ7²âû2é?oz4vÎg´üXãuŠ„´ æ˜&Ø*Nc—ÞG®ž 4 >ò¢â«-õ{?Äg-›þÎ8gW4¨âŸ HŠÁ7ÑLF5>\'è„#!8 UNY %§ 0(­ MÕ Uk>Ù b ^  wš+ 4Å Ù è mê M U* M/ M3 M7 M; 1u? 1‡´ 0 c; 1‡ž UB% 0lg 0DÓ 0 0…+ 0:° 0±êU.› 1‡É 1‡P 1‡× 1‡^ 1‡å 0 wl 1‡ã 1‡j[ñ 1‡L 1‡ÓU2NZb¨M¬€°k0b›! 1‡Ÿ!b&"."ND$ 1‡F$ 1‡Í$ 1‡T%Û% 1‡ñ'Mx(b|(UN€( 1‡Î( 1‡U)UNÜ)b**U>.*pl*[Ü.UN71ú…1ª5U>)8ïg8UNV;€¤;UN$?or?UNáBÂ/CUNñEU>?F?F?Fï}F}F}F}F BlIlIlI 0D‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I‰I 1OÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍIÍI ASJ˜HP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ô\  `&Times New Roman- ù-¶t/‰¶FU·FH¸F¹FHºF»F¼FD½FU¾FD¿FDÀFUÁFUÂFUÃFDÄFUÅFDÆFDÇFDÈFÉFUÊF +ËFÌFDÍFDÎFD÷³-.¢Ø+003|xÎF&ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ%ä2¼A`Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à DíCEKQW]cioAutoList2II1.IIIIIIIIIIII*j¸p`*Bookman Old Style((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó<llÿÿ:Default ParaÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ‡XXXÔ6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó:³Ãÿÿ8Body Text 2Ñ  ÑÓ X ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+4 Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔC‡<þ6X9`(CourierCÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÑ  Ñ<þ6X9`(Courier(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(º½CEKQW]cioAutoList4IVIVIVIVIVIVIVIV(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList5IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(…hCEKQW]cioAutoList6IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •CEKQW]cioAutoList7I.1.I.I.I.I.I.I.(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à ú}CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.(µhCEKQW]cioAutoList9I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. QÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡Š@¹‹XXÔ€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôð ðThe€bill€does€not,€because€of€constitutional€constraints,€dictate€to€the€StatesÐ ° Ðwhich€court€in€each€State€shall€be€the€proper€venue€for€such€action,€as€this€is€a€matter€forÏState€legislators€to€determine.ðð€137€Cong.€Rec.€S.€16,205€(daily€ed.€Nov.€7,€1991)Ï(Remarks€of€Sen.€Hollings)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹t#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹T#ÔÔ#†X<XXX<ë#Ô E¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList171.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(Õ£EGMSY_ekqAutoList10IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ù vÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XXÔ€€€The€reason€the€Texas€Supreme€Court€denied€the€petition€is€because€during€theÐ ° Ðpendency€of€the€òòAutoflexóó€appeal,€the€Texas€legislature€passed€a€statute€expresslyÐ ° Ðproviding€for€a€cause€of€action€in€Texas€state€courts€for€violations€of€the€TCPA,€the€onlyÏstate€to€ever€do€so.€òòSeeóó€Texas€H.B.€23,€76th€Leg.€(Tex.€1999)€(enacted)€amendingÐ ° ÐSection€35.47€of€the€Texas€Business€&€Commerce€Code.€€Therefore€the€Texas€SupremeÏCourt€had€no€need€to€reverse€òòAutoflexó󀄀it€was€mooted€by€legislative€action,€and€theÐ °  Ðlitigation€was€no€longer€important€to€the€jurisprudence€of€Texas,€one€of€the€elements€ofÏcertiorari€to€that€as€in€any€highest€state€court.Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹S#Ô aÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡Š@¹‹XXÔ€€ð ðIf€state€residents€would€prefer€their€government€to€devote€its€attention€andÐ ° Ðresources€to€problems€other€than€those€deeÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹T#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ômed€important€by€Congress,€òòthey€may€chooseóóÐ ° Ðto€have€the€Federal€Government€rather€than€the€State€bear€the€expense€[andÏadministrative€burden]€of€[the€TCPA],€and€they€may€continue€to€supplement€thatÏprogram€to€the€extent€state€law€is€not€pre-empted.€.€.€.ðð€òòInternational€Scienceóó,€106€F.3dÐ ° Ð1146€at€1158.€€Such€ð ðchoiceðð€by€the€ð ðresidentsðð€would€obviously€be€via€legislation.Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹'#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹#Ô ù(U¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList181.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.- ù- Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡Š@¹‹XXÔThis€Background€sectionÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€is€derived€substantially€from€the€Petitionerððs€BriefÐ ° Ðfiled€in€the€companion€case€òòR.A.€Ponte€Architects,€Ltd.€v.€Investors€Alert,€Inc.óó€(òòPonteóó),Ð ° Ðwhich€was€filed€by€one€of€the€same€undersigned€counsel€of€record€in€the€instant€case.Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹U#ÔÔ#†X<XXX<‹#Ô(å£EGMSY_ekqAutoList11I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(õ£EGMSY_ekqAutoList12IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList13IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô‡<Šqß‹XXÔThis€Background€sectionÔ‡AŠqß‹‹ŠqßÔ€is€derived€substantially€from€the€Petitionerððs€Brief€filedÐ ° Ðin€the€companion€case€òòR.A.€Ponte€Architects,€Ltd.€v.€Investors€Alert,€Inc.óó€(òòPonteóó),€whichÐ ¬ü Ðwas€filed€by€one€of€the€same€undersigned€counsel€of€record€in€the€instant€case.Ô#†AX]X‹ŠqßU#ÔÔ#†<X]XXX]‹#Ô(¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList14IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ù(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(%¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList151.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(5¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList161.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.)l£  Z6Times New Roman Regular ùô\  `&Times New Roman fÔ_ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€ð ðsavings€clauseðð€of€the€TCPA,€referenced€in€the€CSA€opinion:€ð ð(e)(1)Ð ° ÐÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔExcept€for€the€standards€prescribed€under€subsection€(d)€and€subject€to€paragraph€(2)€ofÐ ° Ðthis€subsection,€nothing€in€this€section€or€in€the€regulations€prescribed€under€this€sectionÏshall€preempt€any€State€law€that€imposes€more€restrictive€intrastate€requirements€orÏregulations€on,€or€which€prohibits--ÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓ€(A)€the€use€of€telephone€facsimile€machines€or€otherÏelectronic€devices€to€send€unsolicited€advertisements€.€.€.ðð,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(e),€has€noÏimpact€here€because€as€discussed€in€this€Brief€ðð14„1313€is€not€ð ðmore€restrictiveðð€than€theÏTCPA,€and€because€there€is€no€conflict€between€the€two€statutes€insofar€as€private€suitsÏare€concerned.€ÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°XBÓÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ù#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹#Ô QÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡DŠqß‹XXÔ€Ô‡GŠqß‹‹ŠqßÔð ðThe€bill€does€not,€because€of€constitutional€constraints,€dictate€to€the€StatesÐ ° Ðwhich€court€in€each€State€shall€be€the€proper€venue€for€such€action,€as€this€is€a€matter€forÏState€legislators€to€determine.ðð€137€Cong.€Rec.€S.€16,205€(daily€ed.€Nov.€7,€1991)Ï(Remarks€of€Sen.€Hollings)Ô#†DŠqß‹‹Šqßt#ÔÔ‡GŠqß‹‹ŠqßÔ.Ô#†GX]X‹ŠqßT#ÔÔ#†DX]XXX]ë#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  Cas MfrsBiggusLovemanCicoriaClaflinFelland DigiHelveringHallock S.E.reconsiddendCommunKilroyDirectTVMarzullo KahlMcKessonMcKnettMayfieldMondouPrintzEverngamAluisiSprietsmaColumrespondeat LTDMilleniumFaxcastingSubmittalEllicotB]usinesses W]ereturn[ingH.R.RepimpolicySt.LouisBombolis Vill RysCommnCarboneClarkstownHousemannLorillard H.B.DieblerS]inceSchlossberg  Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XXÔòò€€óóðð14„1313€of€the€Commercial€Law€Article,€enacted€in€1989,€is€one€of€the€earliestÐ ° Ðstate€anti„fax€statutes€and€predates€the€TCPA;€òòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔóóòòWorshamóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹#Ô,€òòsupraóó,€has€been€a€leading€caseÐ ° Ðon€private€TCPA€enforcement€suits;€ðð14„3001€et€seq.€of€the€Commercial€Law€Article,Ïenacted€October€1,€2002,€is€one€of€the€first€anti„spam€statutes€in€the€country€and€like€theÏTCPA€establishes€$500€in€statutory€damages.Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹S#Ôô\  `&Times New Roman åÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡IŠqß‹XXÔ€€The€CSA€framed€the€central€issue€as,€ð ðWhether€Maryland€has€òòdecided€to€permitóóÐ ° Ðprivate€suits€under€the€TCPA,ðð€implying€that€an€affirmative€act€of€the€General€AssemblyÏis€needed€before€private€TCPA€suits€would€be€entertained€in€state€courts.€€(Slip€opinion€atÏp.€12)€€€Petitioner€contends€that€this€framing€of€the€issue,€and€the€less€extreme€notionÏexpressed€in€òòInternational€Scienceóó,€òòinfraóó,€as€quoted€by€the€CSA€below,€that€the€states€areÐ  ð Ðfree€to€pass€legislation€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€private€TCPA€suits,€are€both€misdirected.€Ô#†IX]X‹ŠqßS#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular vÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡KŠqß‹XXÔ€€€The€reason€the€Texas€Supreme€Court€denied€the€petition€is€because€during€theÐ ° Ðpendency€of€the€òòAutoflexóó€appeal,€the€Texas€legislature€passed€a€statute€expresslyÐ ¬ü Ðproviding€for€a€cause€of€action€in€Texas€state€courts€for€violations€of€the€TCPA,€the€onlyÏstate€to€ever€do€so.€òòSeeóó€Texas€H.B.€23,€76th€Leg.€(Tex.€1999)€(enacted)€amending€SectionÐ ¤ô Ð35.47€of€the€Texas€Business€&€Commerce€Code.€€Therefore€the€Texas€Supreme€CourtÏhad€no€need€to€reverse€òòAutoflexó󀄀it€was€mooted€by€legislative€action,€and€the€litigationÐ œ ì Ðwas€no€longer€important€to€the€jurisprudence€of€Texas,€one€of€the€elements€of€certiorari€toÏthat€as€in€any€highest€state€court.Ô#†KX]X‹ŠqßS#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular eÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô‡MŠqß‹XXÔ€€ð ðIf€state€residents€would€prefer€their€government€to€devote€its€attention€andÐ ° Ðresources€to€problems€other€than€those€deeÔ#†MX]X‹ŠqßT#ÔÔ‡MŠqß‹XX]Ômed€important€by€Congress,€òòthey€may€chooseóóÐ ¬ü Ðto€have€the€Federal€Government€rather€than€the€State€bear€the€expense€[and€administrativeÏburden]€of€[the€TCPA],€and€they€may€continue€to€supplement€that€program€to€the€extentÏstate€law€is€not€pre-empted.€.€.€.ðð€òòInternational€Scienceóó,€106€F.3d€1146€at€1158.€€SuchÐ  ð … Ðð ðchoiceðð€by€the€ð ðresidentsðð€would€obviously€be€via€legislation.Ô#†MX]X‹Šqß'#ÔÔ‡MŠqß‹XX]Ô€Ô#†MX]X‹Šqß"#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ¸Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡OŠqß‹XXÔòò€€óóðð14„1313€of€the€Commercial€Law€Article,€enacted€in€1989,€is€one€of€the€earliestÐ ° Ðstate€anti„fax€statutes€and€predates€the€TCPA;€òòÔ‡PŠqß‹‹ŠqßÔóóòòWorshamóóÔ#†OŠqß‹‹Šqß#Ô,€òòsupraóó,€has€been€a€leading€caseÐ ¬ü Ðon€private€TCPA€enforcement€suits;€ðð14„3001€et€seq.€of€the€Commercial€Law€Article,Ð ¨ø ‡ Ðenacted€October€1,€2002,€is€one€of€the€first€anti„spam€statutes€in€the€country€and€like€theÏTCPA€establishes€$500€in€statutory€damages.Ô#†OX]X‹ŠqßS#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regularô\  `&Times New Roman åÝ ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XXÔ€€The€CSA€framed€the€central€issue€as,€ð ðWhether€Maryland€has€òòdecided€to€permitóóÐ ° Ðprivate€suits€under€the€TCPA,ðð€implying€that€an€affirmative€act€of€the€General€AssemblyÏis€needed€before€private€TCPA€suits€would€be€entertained€in€state€courts.€€(Slip€opinionÏat€p.€12)€€€Petitioner€contends€that€this€framing€of€the€issue,€and€the€less€extreme€notionÏexpressed€in€òòInternational€Scienceóó,€òòinfraóó,€as€quoted€by€the€CSA€below,€that€the€states€areÐ ° Ðfree€to€pass€legislation€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€private€TCPA€suits,€are€both€misdirected.€Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹S#Ô d(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý“ 379;=?ACEÐÐZMùÿ -°, dcÿÿÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÙÙòòÓ  Óò òÔ‡Š@¹‹XXÔÑ€ÑÑ8€<XXdìdÈ8ÑTable€of€ContentsÐ ° Ðó óóóÌÓ<ÓÓL€ 5å£(3LÓÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£:ÝÔ2å£ÔÚ  ÚIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝTable€of€Cases€and€Authoritiesà‚#°"°"I(#.’’-(#(##àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àii݃3£:eÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ ‚3£ ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£`ÝÔ2å£ÔÚ  ÚIIÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝStatement€of€the€Caseà‚#„"„"I(#.tt$(#(##àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à€1݃3£`‹ÝŒˆÐ ° ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓL€ 7¤((5LÓIII.€€€à0  àQuestions€Presentedà0(#(#àà‚#º"º"J(#.(#(##àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à3ˆÐ °  ÐÌIV.€à0  àStatement€of€Factsà‚#º"º"J(#.X X !(#(##àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à3ˆÐ °  ÐÌV.à0  àArgumentà‚#L"L"I(#.z z (#(##àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à11ˆÐ °  ÐÌÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà0  àA.€à0` (#(#àState€courts€have€no€constitutional€authority€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€a€federal€lawÐ °  Ðand€may€not€reject€state€court€jurisdiction€over€private€TCPA€actions€Ïunless€barred€by€a€neutral€rule€of€court€administrationÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Z#Ôà‚#L"L"I(#.œœK` (#` (##àà @  àà @x àà0@Ð ` (#` (#àÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô11ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ò#Ô1.€€TCPA€background€related€to€unsolicited€fax€advertisements.à‚L"L"I(#.Rà11Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔˆÐ ° ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à2.€€The€Supremacy€Clause€of€the€U.€S.€Constitution€and€the€MarylandÏDeclaration€of€Rights€compel€state€courts€to€hear€actions€brought€underÏfederal€statutes,€including€the€TCPAÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹À#Ôà‚#""H(#.ÈÈ8` (#` (##àà @p àà @È àà0@ ` (#` (#àÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€13ˆÐ ° ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à3.€ò òÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹8 #Ôó óÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹K#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€Congressional€intentÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹½ #ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€to€limit€state€court€jurisdiction€over€enforcementÐ ° Ðactions€brought€under€federal€statutes,€on€substantive€grounds,€rather€thanÏneutral€rules€of€court€administration,€must€be€ð ðunmistakably€clearððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹V #Ôà‚#L"L"I(#.  W` (#` (##àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô16ˆÐ ° ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#à4.€€The€TCPAððs€ð ðif€otherwise€permittedðð€language€refers€to€neutral€rules€€Ïor€laws€governing€court€administration€and€proceduresÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¼ #Ôà‚#""H(#.þþI` (#` (##àà @p àà @È àà0@ ` (#` (#àÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€18Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ #ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ÿ #ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ԈР° Ðà  àÌà0  àà0` (#(#à5.€€The€Tenth€Amendment€Poses€No€Problem€To€Congressional€CreationÏOf€A€Private€Right€Actionable€In€State€CourtÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹T #Ôà‚#L"L"I(#.ÄÄ@` (#` (##àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹– #ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô22ˆÐ °" ÐÌÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ï#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà0  àà0` (#(#àà  àB.€à ` àEven€if€the€TCPA€were€read€to€allow€states€toÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹J#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€reject€the€TCPAððs€privateÐ °$  Ðcause€of€action€for€facsimile€violations,€Maryland€has€made€no€suchÏrejection.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ô#Ôà‚#L"L"I(#. ` (#` (##àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô25ˆÐ °&"" ÐÌÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ñ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà0  àà0` (#(#à1.€ò òÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹L#Ôó óMaryland€has€not€rejected€TCPA€jurisdiction€in€state€courtsÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Ð#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ò#Ôà‚#à!à!G(#.®®S` (#` (##àà @Ð àÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà @Ð à€€25Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¦#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔˆÐ °($$ ÐÌà  àà0 ` à2.€€The€absence€of€a€state€ð ðcounterpartðð€statute€does€not€diminish€the€Ð ` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àviability€of€private€enforcement€actions€under€the€TCPAÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ø#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.ŽŽKàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à29Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔˆÐ °+'' Ðò òòòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹]#Ôóóó óñÌFñÌñÌFñà0  àà0` (#(#à3.€€The€CSA€misapplied€the€principles€of€legislative€interpretation€andÐ ° Ðfailed€to€harmonize€the€TCPA€and€the€Maryland€fax€statute.à‚#L"L"I(#.ÀÀN` (#` (##àà @x à31ˆÐ ° ÐÌVI.à0  àConclusionà‚#ª!ª!F(#.ì ì (#(##àà0@¸ (#(#àà0@¸ (#¸ (#àà0@h(#(#àà0@Àh(#h(#àà0@À(#À(#àà0@p(#(#àà0@Èp(#p(#àà0@ È(#È(#àà0@x (# (#àà0@Ð x(#x(#àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@Ð Ð ê$Ð ê$à€€€36ˆÐ ° ÐÌAppendixà‚2 2 B(#.àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà0@¸ ê$ê$àà0@¸ ê$¸ ê$àà0@hê$ê$àà0@Àhê$hê$àà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à€€€App.€1ˆÐ °  ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹4#ÔÓ  Óòòò òÌTABLE€OF€CASES€AND€AUTHORITIESó óóóÐ œ ì ÐÓwÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÓL€ 5å£((7LÓòòò òÌÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Ó#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôó óCaseóóà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#à€€€à0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àà È àà0 p(#p(#à€€€€€€€€€òòCited€at€pages:óóЈ Ø  (# (# ÐòòAllied€Vending€Inc.,€v.€City€of€Bowieóó,€332€Md.€279€(1993)à‚L"L"I(#.ttCàà @È àà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à32à @ àà @` àà @¸ àà @ àˆÐ ˆØ  ÐòòÌAmalgamated€Cas.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Helmsóó,€239€Md.€529€(1965)à‚L"L"I(#.@àà0 @È àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à33ˆÐ ˆØ  ÐÌòòAutoflex€Leasing,€Inc.€v.€Mfrs.€Auto€Leasing,€Inc.óó,€16€S.€W.€3d€815€(2000)à‚(!(!F(#.ææTàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @ à25„27à @` àà @¸ àà @ àà @h àˆÐ ˆØ  ÐÌòòBiggus€v.€Ford€Motor€Credit€Co.óó,€328€Md.€188€(1992)à‚L"L"I(#.>>=àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹h#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà0 @  àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à35ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòLevitt€v.€Fax.com,€Inc.€et€al.óó,€CA€No.€21,€Sept.€Term,€2003€à‚š š B(#.ææFàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹æ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà0 @  àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à€€à0@”#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@”#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@”#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@”#Ð ê$Ð ê$à1,€3,€4ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòCatonsville€Nursing€Home,€Inc.€v.€Loveman,óó€349€Md.€560€(1998)à‚L"L"I(#.òòGàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹n#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà0 @  àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à32ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔòòC&C€Carbone,€Inc.€v.€Town€of€Clarkstownóó,€511€U.S.€383€(1994)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¦!#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ê #ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€à‚L"L"I(#.ôôGàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à17Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹M"#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ԈРˆØ ÐòòÌChesapeake€and€Potomac€Tel.€Co.€v.€Dir.€of€Finóó.,€343€Md.€567€(1996)à‚L"L"I(#.®®Màà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹##ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà0 @x àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à33ˆÐ ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌòòCicoria€v.€Stateóó,€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô332€Md.€21,€629€A.2d€742€(1993)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ò$#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹â##ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚Î Î D(#.þþ;àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹V%#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà0 @p àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$à€33,€34ˆÐ ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àÌòòClaflin€v.€Housemanóó,€93€U.S.€130€(1876)€à‚tt=(#.îî2àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹×%#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà0 @ àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$à19,€22,€24,€29ˆÐ ˆ Ø ÐÌòòDeibler€v.€State,€óó365€Md.€185€(2001)à‚`"`"I(#.NN.àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹'#Ôà0 @x àà0@Ð xê$xê$à30Ô‡Š@¹‹XX<ԈРˆ"Ø ÐòòÌDepððt.€Of€Econ.€and€Employ.€Dev.€v.€Tayloróó,€108€Md.€App.€250€Ð ˆ$Ø  Ðòòaffððdóó,€344€Md.€687€(1997)€à‚L"L"I(#.Ò Ò $àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹R(#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à33ˆÐ ˆ%Ø ! ÐÌòòDestination€Ventures€v.€FCCóó,€844€F.€Supp.€632€(D.€Or.€1994)à È àà‚L"L"I(#.ÈÈ7àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹D)#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à13Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹O*#ԈРˆ'Ø"# ÐÌÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔòòDestination€Ventures€v.€FCCóóÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Ú*#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô,€€46€F.€3d€54€(9th€Cir.1995)à‚L"L"I(#.22Bàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹=+#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à13ˆÐ t)Ä$% ÐÌòòÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Û+#ÔDouglas€v.€New€York.€N.H.€&€H.R.€Co.óó,€279€U.S.€377,€73€L.Ed.747€(1929)à‚!!D(#.ôôPà€16,€19òòˆÐ t+Ä&' Ðòòóóò òÓ  ÓñÍFñÌñÍFñTABLE€OF€CASES€AND€AUTHORITIESó óóóÐ ° ÐÓö,ÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÓL€ 5å£((5LÓòòò òÌÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹V-#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôó óCaseóóà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#à€€€à0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àà È àà0 p(#p(#à€€€€€€€€€òòCited€at€pages:óóМì (# (# ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ë-#ÔòòóóòòÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔFelland€Limited€Partnership€v.€Digi„Tel€Communications,€LLC,€et€al.óó,€CA€No.€20€à‚º"º"J(#.À À Yàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àòòà @Ð àà @(# àóó2ˆÐ œì ÐÌòòFrost€v.€Stateóó,€336€Md.€125€(1994)€à‚L"L"I(#.ÄÄ-àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àòòà @À àà @ àà @p àà @È àà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# àóó33òòˆÐ œ ì ÐÌóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔòòGulf€Offshore€Co.€v.€Mobil€Oil€Corp.óó,€453€U.S.€473€(1981)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ 1#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.ÄÄCàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àòòà @À àà @ àà @p àà @È àà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# àóó14òòˆÐ œ ì ÐóóÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹8/#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔòòÌHelvering€v.€Hallockóó,€309€U.S.€106€(1940)€à‚L"L"I(#.nn4àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà0 @ àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à35ˆÐ œ ì  ÐÌòòHerb€v.€Pitcairnóó,€324€U.S.€117€(1945)€à‚L"L"I(#.àà0àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà0 @À àà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à19ˆÐ œì  ÐÌòòHooters€v.€Nicholsonóó,€245€Ga.€App.€363,€537€S.E.€2d€468,€(2000),€Ð œì  Ðòòreconsid.€Ô_ÔdenððdÔ_Ôóó€January€19,€2001€à‚""H(#.<<+àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à€à0 @h àà0@Àhê$hê$àà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà @Ð à27ˆÐ œì  ÐÌòòHowlett€v.€Roseóó,€496€U.S.€356,€110€L.Ed.2d€332€(1990)òòóó€à‚˜˜>(#.ÞÞ@àà0 @(# àà @ à15,€16,€19„22ˆÐ œì Ðò òòòó óÌòòóóInternational€Science€&€Tech.€Inst.,€Inc.€v.€Inacom€Commun.,€Inc.óó,€Ð œì Ð106€F.3d€1146€(4th€Cir.1997)à‚PP:(#.ÂÂ&àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à20,€22„24,€27,€28ˆÐ œì ÐÌòòKaplan€v.€Democrat€&€Chronicleóó,€698€N.Y.S.2d€799€(N.Y.€App.€Div.€1999)€à‚L"L"I(#.ââQàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à27ˆÐ œì ÐÌòòKenro€v.€Fax€Dailyóó,€904€F.€Supp.€912,€and€962€F.€Supp.1162€(S.D.€Ind.€1995)€à‚L"L"I(#.‚‚Vàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à12ˆÐ œì ÐÌòòKilroy€v.€Superior€Courtóó,€54€Cal.€App€4òòthóó€793€(1997)€à‚L"L"I(#.ÞÞ?àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à17ˆÐ œì ÐÌòòLewis€v.€Stateóó,€348€Md.€648€(1998)€à‚L"L"I(#.èè-àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à33ˆÐ œì ÐÌòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔLorillard€v.€Ponsóó,€434€U.S.€575,€577€(1978)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹;:#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.¬¬5àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à21ˆÐ œ!ì ÐÌòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔMaine€v.€Tayloróó€477€U.S.€131,€139€(1986)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹6;#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹r2#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚L"L"I(#.2àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à17Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹Æ;#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ԈРœ#ì ÐÌòòMartin€v.€Beverage€Capital€Corp.óó,€353€Md.€388€(1999)à‚L"L"I(#.ŠŠ>àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à32ˆÐ œ%ì ! ÐÌòòMartin€v.€Hunterððs€Lesseeóó,€14€U.S.€304€(1816)à‚L"L"I(#.ŽŽ7àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà0 @ àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à15ˆÐ œ'ì"# ÐÌòòMarriott€Employees€Fed.€Credit€Union€v.€Motor€Vehicle€Admin.óó,€346€Md.€437€(1997)à‚L"L"I(#.Þ!Þ!Zàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà0 @¸ àà0@¸ ê$¸ ê$àà0@hê$ê$àà0@Àhê$hê$àà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à32ˆÐ œ)ì$% ÐÌòòMarzullo€v.€Kahlóó,€135€Md.€App.€663,€763A.2d€1217€(2000)à‚L"L"I(#.Aàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà0 @È àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à32ˆÐ œ+ì&' ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹y<#Ôò òòòÓ  ÓñÎFñÌñÎFñTABLE€OF€CASES€AND€AUTHORITIES€(continued)ó óóóÐ ° ÐÓAÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÓL€ 5å£((5LÓòòò òÌÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹†A#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôó óCaseóóà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#à€€€à0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àà È àà0 p(#p(#à€€€€€€€€€òòCited€at€pages:óóМì (# (# ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹B#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔòòMcKesson€Corp.€v.€Division€of€Alcoholic€Beverages€&€Tobaccoóó,€496€U.S.€18€(1990)à‚L"L"I(#.h!h!Yàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà @(# à14ˆÐ œì ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹_C#Ôòòò òòòó óóóÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÌMcKnett€v.€St.€Louis€&€San€Francisco€R.€Co.óó,€292€U.S.€230€(1934)à‚à!à!G(#.jjJàÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹hD#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€€21ˆÐ œ ì ÐÌòòMinneapolis€&€St.Louis€R.€Co.€v.€Bombolisóó,€241€U.S.€at€222Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹ E#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚""H(#.$$Dàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹¦E#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà @  àà @x àà @Ð à€15Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹'F#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ԈРœ ì ÐòòÌMissouri€ex€rel.€Southern€R.€Co.€v.€Mayfieldóó,€340€U.S.€1€(1950)à‚L"L"I(#.LLIàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹F#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à19ˆÐ œ ì  ÐÌòòMondou€v.€New€York,€N.H.€&€H.R.€Co.óó,€223€U.S.€1,€56€L.Ed.€327€(1912)à‚¼¼A(#.nnNàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹mG#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô15,€20,€21ˆÐ œì  ÐÌÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹H#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔòòMontgomery€County€v.€Buckmanóó,€333€Md.€516€(1994)€à‚L"L"I(#.pp;àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹äH#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô33ˆÐ œì  ÐÌòòNew€York€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€144€(1992)à‚L"L"I(#.8àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹œI#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà @p àà @È àà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# à23ˆÐ œì ÐÌòòPatterson€v.€McLean€Credit€Unionóó,€491€U.S.€164€(1989)à‚L"L"I(#.øø?àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹jJ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô35à @È# àà @È# àà @È# àˆÐ œì ÐÌÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔòòPrintz€v.€United€Statesóó,€521€U.S.€898€(1997)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ãK#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹‡K#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚!!E(#.ÄÄ6àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹zL#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô23,€24ˆÐ œì ÐÌòòR.A.€Ponte€Architects,€Ltd.€v.€Investors€Alert,€Inc.óó,€149€Md.€App€219€(2003)à‚Ä Ä E(#.††Vàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àòòà @À àà @ àà @p àà @È àà @  àà @x àà @Ð àà @(# àóóPassimòòˆÐ œì ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ûL#Ôò òÓ  ÓÌó óóóÓsNÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔòòReynolds€v.€Diamond€Foodsóó,€79€S.W.3d€907€(Mo.€2002)€à‚L"L"I(#.88>àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹–N#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô27ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòRobinson€v.€Bunchóó,€367€Md.€432,€788€A.€2d€636€(2002)Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹QO#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€à‚††@(#.öö?àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹æO#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€14,€21,€22ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹hP#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔòòSchulman€v.€Chase€Manhattan€Bankóó,€710€N.Y.S.2d€368€(2000)€à‚`"`"I(#.xxDàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ÌP#Ôà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à21ˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòSchuman,€Kane,€Felts€&€Everngam,€Chartered€v.€Aluisióó,€341€Md.€115€(1995)Ô‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚`"`"I(#.ÀÀRàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹0R#Ôà0 @x àà0@Ð xê$xê$à21ˆÐ t!Ä ÐÌòòÔ‡+X<XXX<ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹X+X<ÔSprietsma€v.€Mercury€Marineóó,€23€S.€Ct.€518€(2002)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹íR#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ S#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚`"`"I(#.$$;àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹¥S#Ôà0 @x àà0@Ð xê$xê$à31ˆÐ L#œ ÐÌòòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€332€Md.€1€(1993)€Ô‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚`"`"I(#.ˆˆ.àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹eT#Ôà0 @À àà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$à33ˆÐ 8%ˆ ! ÐÌòòTesta€v.€Kattóó,€330€U.S.€386€(1947)Ô‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚„„5(#.tt,àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹¿U#Ôà0 @h àà0@Àhê$hê$àà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$à15,€21,€22,€29,€30,€32ˆÐ '`"# ÐÌòòUnited€States€v.€Bassóó,€404€U.S.€336€(1971)Ô‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚  A(#.4àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹5W#Ôà0 @À àà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$à17,€18,€28ˆÐ è(8$% Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌòòUnited€States€v.€Darbyóó,€312€U.S.€100€(1941)à0 À àÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà‚#`"`"I(#.ÀÀ(À(#À(##àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ÈX#Ôà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$à24ˆÐ À*&' ÐÐ ¬+ü&( Ðòòóóò òòòÓ  ÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÓ€ÓTABLE€OF€CASES€AND€AUTHORITIESó óóó€ò ò(continued)ó óÐ ° ÐÓZÓÓL€ 5å£((5LÓòòò òó óCaseóóà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#à€€€à0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àà È àà0 p(#p(#à€€€€€€€€€òòCited€at€pages:óóÐ6† (# (# ÐòòWill€v.€Michiganóó,€491€U.S.€58€(1989)à‚!!E(#.``.àà0@Ð xê$xê$à16,€17ˆÐ ¶ ÐòòWorsham€v.€Nationwideóó,€138€Md.€App.€487,€772€A.€2d€868€(2001),€Ð 6 † Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€365€Md.€268,€778€A.€2d€383€(2001)€à‚¼¼A(#.ŠŠ:àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à25,€27,€29ˆÐ ¶  ÐòòZelma€v.€Total€Remodeling,€Inc.óó,€778€A.2d€591€(N.J.€App.,€2001)à‚L"L"I(#.îîIà27à @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àà0 @p àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$àà0@(#Ð ê$Ð ê$àˆÐ 6 †  ÐòòÓ  Óò òSTATUTESà0 @` àó óóóÐ ¶   ÐÓa^ÓòòóóTelephone€Consumer€Protection€Act,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227à‚Ä Ä E(#.<àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àPassimˆÐ 6†  ÐØØÓL€ #…h((5LÓAnnotated€Code€of€Maryland,€Commercial€Law€Article€ðð14„1313à‚,,9(#.Eàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àòòà‚@$$Lê$.JJTàà @x àà @Ð àóóà0 @(# à29,€30,€34,€35,€37ˆÐ ¶  Ðòòò òÓ  ÓCONSTITUTIONAL€PROVISIONSó óÐ 6†  ÐÓ `ÓóóU.S.€Constitution,€Article€VI,€clause€2€(Supremacy€Clause)à‚Ä Ä E(#.ÈÈDàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àPassimˆÐ ¶ ÐU.S.€Constitution,€Tenth€Amendmentà‚ààB(#.rr,àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à18,€22„24ˆÐ 6† ÐMaryland€Declaration€of€Rights,€Article€2à‚tt=(#.ìì3à13,€14,€34,€36à0@ $Ð ê$Ð ê$àˆÐ ¶ ÐòòÓ  Óò òTREATISES€AND€LAW€REVIEW€ARTICLESó óóóÐ 6† ÐÓ„bÓÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔRobert€Biggerstaff,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ßb#ÔòòState€Courts€and€the€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act€Ô‡Šg ‹‹Š@¹Ôof€Ô#†Š@¹‹ ‹Šgoc#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô1991:€Ð ¶ ÐMust€States€Opt„in?€Can€States€Opt„out?,óó€33€Conn.€L.€Rev.€404Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹´c#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€òòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Qd#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó(2001)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹—d#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.úúNàà @x àà @Ð à1à0 @(# à9ˆÐ H˜ ÐÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔHart,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹9e#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔThe€Relations€Between€State€and€Federal€Law€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹„e#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô(1954)€Ð È  Ð54€Colum.€L.€Rev.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹õe#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó489,€5081)€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹hf#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.(('àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à19ˆÐ H˜" ÐÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔWright,€Miller€&€Cooper,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹g#ÔòòóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô13€Federal€Practice€and€Procedure,€ðð3526€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹pg#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.Làà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à23ˆÐ È$ ÐÓ  Óòòò òRULESó óóóÐ H!˜& ÐÓ5hÓÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔTexas€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€Rule€56.1(b)(1).Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹wh#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.êê>àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à26ˆÐ È"( ÐÓ  Óòòò òOTHER€AUTHORITIESó óóóÐ H$˜* ÐÓDiÓ135€òòCong.óó€òòRec.óó€E1462€(daily€ed.€May€2,€1989)Ô‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹Êi#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.ÜÜ7àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à12ˆÐ È%!, Ð137€òòCong.óó€òòRec.óó€S9840„02€and€S16207€(daily€ed.€July€11€and€Nov.€7,€1991)Ô‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹·j#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.‚‚Ràà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à12ˆÐ H'˜". ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Z#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔH.R.€Rep.€No.€317Ô‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹¤k#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.F F àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à13ˆÐ È($0 ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹tk#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔS.€Rep.€No.€102-178€(1991),€reprinted€in€1991€U.S.C.C.A.N.1968Ô‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹¾l#Ôà‚L"L"I(#.``Iàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à12Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹al#ԈР H*˜%2 ÐÓ€ZÓØØÙÙÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôòòò òÓ 5ÓóóÑ€,ÑII.€òòÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹’m#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà  àSTATEMENT€OF€THE€CASEó óóóÐ ° ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ n#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÓ·mÓÓ€ÓÓ  Óà  àPlaintiff/Petitioner,€Bruce€Levitt,€filed€a€class€action€complaint€on€May€7,€2001Ð ° Ðagainst€Fax.com,€Inc.,€Kevin€Katz,€Charles€Martin€and€JD&T€Enterprises,€Inc.€allegingÏviolations€of€the€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227,€and€related€FCCÏregulations.€€On€July€27,€2001€the€court€granted€Plaintiffððs€motion€to€preserve€records.€€E„5,ÏE„25.€€On€September€24,€2001€Petitioner€filed€an€amended€class€action€complaint€againstÏFax.com,€Inc.€and€JD&T€Enterprises,€Inc.,€dismissing€Messrs.€Katz€and€Martin€from€the€suit.€ÏR.€at€Docket€#00013000.€€On€Sep.€27,€2001€the€circuit€court€granted€a€motion€to€dismiss€forÏlack€of€personal€jurisdiction€filed€by€these€same€individual€Defendants,€but€on€Nov.€11,Ï2001€the€court€granted€Petitionerððs€Motion€to€Vacate€that€Sep.€27€order€as€moot.€R.€atÏDocket€#0014000.Ìà  àIn€response€to€discovery€motions€filed€by€Plaintiff,€the€court€issued€orders€on€MayÏ13,€2002€compelling€Defendants€to€produce€documents€(E„28),€and€on€June€12,€2002Ïrequiring€Defendants€to€produce€knowledgeable€designees€to€testify€at€deposition.€€E„30.€OnÏNovember€27,€2002€the€court€issued€a€Memorandum€Opinion€and€Order€denying€theÏDefendantsðð€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€and€on€December€10,€2002€issued€a€RevisedÏMemorandum€Opinion€also€denying€the€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€E„12,€E„106.€Ìà  àOn€December€24,€2002€the€court€issued€an€order€granting€Plaintiffððs€motion€for€classÏcertification€and€appointing€Plaintiffððs€counsel€as€class€counsel.€€R.€at€Docket€no.€0067003.Ìà  àOn€February€6,€2003,€following€the€issuance€of€the€opinion€inòò€R.A.€Ponte€Architects,Ð °!& ÐLtd.€v.€Investorsðð€Alert,€Inc.óó,€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔNo.€537,€Sept.€Term€2001,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹–u#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô149€Md.€App.€219€(filed€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹òu#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔJanuaryÐ 0#€( Ð29,€2003)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Lv#Ô€(òòPonteóó)€the€court€granted€Defendantsðð€renewed€motion€for€summary€judgment.€Ð °$ * ÐE„127.€€By€Order€dated€April€9,€2003,€the€court€denied€Petitionerððs€motion€forÏreconsideration.€€E„17;€R.€at€Docket€#0100004.€€The€April€9,€2003€Order€required€allÏreferences€to€information€exchanged€between€the€parties€in€connection€with€settlementÏdiscussions€to€be€struck€from€the€record.Ð °*&2 Ðà  àThe€Orders€and€rulings€of€February€6€and€April€9,€2003€were€dispositive€as€to€allÏissues.€On€May€6,€2003€Petitioner€filed€a€notice€of€appeal.€€R.€at€Docket€#€0103000.€€OnÏJune€3,€2003,€before€any€briefs€were€filed€in€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals,ÏDefendants/Respondents€filed€a€petition€for€certiorari,€which€was€granted€by€order€of€thisÏcourt€dated€June€12,€2003.€€Ìà  àCertiorari€has€been€granted€in€the€following€related€cases,€all€of€which€were€broughtÏunder€the€unsolicited€facsimile€provisions€of€the€TCPA,€and€have€been€combined€forÏargument€with€the€instant€case:ÌÓ€¼nÓÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹‡n#ÔÓÎnÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÌÓ  Ó1.à0  àòòFelland€Limited€Partnership€v.€Digi„Tel€Communications,€LLC,€et€al.óó,€CA€No.€20,Ð °  ÐSeptember€Term,€2003Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹ñz#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô,€appeal€from€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€County.€€TheÐ ° Ðcircuit€court€in€òòFellandóó€granted€summary€judgment€and€dismissed€on€March€21,Ð ° Ð2002,€finding€no€private€cause€of€action€in€the€Maryland€courts€for€private€TCPA€faxÏsuits,€lack€of€agency€under€respondeat€superior,€and€unconstitutionality€under€theÏeighth€amendment€due€to€ð ðexcessive€finesðð€posed€by€TCPA€class€actions.€Ð (#(# ÐÓ{ÓÌÓ  Ó2.à0  àòòóóòòÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Ì{#ÔR.A.€Ponte€Architects,€Ltd.€v.€Investorsðð€Alert,€Inc.óó,€Ô‡X<XXX<ÔNo.€537,€Sept.€Term€2001,€Ô#†X<XXX<>~#ÔÔ‡+X<XXX<Ô149€Md.€App.Ð ° Ð219€(filed€Ô#†X<XX+X<š~#ÔÔ‡X<XXX<ÔJanuary€29,€2003),€appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€forÔ#†X<XXX<#ÔÔ‡X<XXX<Ô€Montgomery€County€(CaseÐ ° Ð#€215514V)Ô#†X<XXX<~#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô.€€This€class€action€complaint€was€dismissed€on€April€12,€2001€for€lack€ofÐ œì Ðsubject€matter€jurisdiction€for€TCPA€private€actions€in€state€courts.€€Appeal€wasÏtaken€to€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals,€which€affirmed€Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹÷#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôon€January€29,€2003.Мì(#(# ÐÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ #ÔÓ»}ÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÌà  àThe€Court€issued€a€notice€that€this€case€and€all€of€the€companion€cases€will€be€ÌÌargued€on€October€2,€2003€at€9:30€AM.Ð  œ ì  ÐØØÓL€ $• (#LÓò òIII.€òòà  àQUESTIONS€PRESENTEDó óóóÐ ° Ðò òòòó óóóÌÓ€Óà  à1.à0 ` àWhether€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€erred€in€holding€that€a€state€has€theÐ ° Ðconstitutional€authority€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€the€federal€Telephone€ConsumerÏProtection€Act,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227€(TCPA).Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹¥#ÔÓL€ )E¤( $LÓØØÝ ‚%é; ÝÝ  ÝÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÝ‚%é;ÄÝà0  àÔ2E¤ÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝWhether€Congress€provided€an€unmistakably€ð ðclear€statementðð€to€alter€theÐ °   Ðtraditional€federalÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹î„#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô„state€constitutional€balance€and€permit€states€to€chooseÐ 0€  Ðto€ð ðopt€outðð€of€their€obligation€to€hear€private€cases€under€the€TCPA.݃%é;Ä …݌Р` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àÌÝ ‚%é; ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚%é;‡Ýà0  àÔ2E¤ÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹†#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔWhether,€assuming€Maryland€has€the€constitutional€authority€to€ð ðopt€outððÐ ° Ðof€the€TCPA€and€that€Congress€provided€an€unmistakably€ð ðclear€statementððÏof€intent€to€allow€a€state€to€ð ðopt€out,ðð€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€erred€inÏholding€that€Maryland€in€fact€did€choose€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€the€TCPA.݃%é;‡?‡ÝŒÐ ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ€ƒÓÌÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Ï‡#ÔÓL€ 'µh(()LÓòòò òÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔóóIV.€à0  àòòSTATEMENT€OF€FACTSóóó óа(#(# ЀÌò òòòÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Š#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔAgreed€Statement€of€Facts€in€Lieu€of€Transcriptó óóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÓÓà  àPetitioner,€Bruce€Levitt,€an€attorney€in€private€practice€in€Maryland,€receivedÐ ° ÐallegedlyÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹‹#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€unsolicited€advertisements€via€facsimile€promoting€the€products€and€services€ofÐ °! ÐRespondent€JD&€T€Enterprises,€Inc.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹Þ‹#ÔÔ‡?Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôa€California€corporation€that€conducts€business€underÐ °!# Ðthe€name€ð ðTravel€To€Go,ðð€and€sells€travel€services,€which€it€allegedly€advertised€throughÏRespondent€Fax.com,€Inc.,€by€sending€advertisements€via€facsimile.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹?Š@¹¨Œ#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹Ö#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Fax.com,€Inc.€aÐ °%!' ÐDelaware€corporation€with€its€principal€place€of€business€in€California,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ž#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôis€engaged€in€theÐ °'#) ÐbusinessÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÉŽ#ÔòòóóÔ‡?Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€of€sending€advertisements€by€facsimile€on€behalf€of€others€to€facsimile€numbersÐ °)%+ Ðthroughout€the€Unites€States,€including€Maryland.Ð °+'- ЀÔ#†Š@¹‹‹?Š@¹?#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà  àLevitt€filed€this€suit€as€a€class€action€under€the€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹-#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔTelephone€Consumer€Protection€ActÐ ° Ð(TCPA)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹®#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(1)(C)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹,‘#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹‹‘#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôin€the€Circuit€Court€for€Baltimore€City€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹Î‘#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôagainst€JD&TÐ ° ÐEnterprises,€Inc.€and€Fax.com,€Inc.€seeking€statutory€damages€of€$500€per€violation,€or€upÏto€$1500€for€each€violation€found€to€be€the€result€of€knowing€or€willful€conduct.€€ClassÏcertification€was€granted€via€order€dated€December€24,€2002.€€Respondentsðð€motion€forÏsummary€judgment€was€initially€denied€via€order€dated€November€27,€2002,€but€wasÏrenewed€òòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹8’#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóóafter€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€issued€its€opinion€inòò€R.€A.€Ponte€Architects,€LTDÐ °  Ðv.€Investorsðð€Alert,€Inc.óó,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹”#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔNo.€537,€Sept.€Term€2001,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ö”#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô149€Md.€App.€219€(filed€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹2•#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔJanuary€29,Ð ° Ð2003)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Œ•#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô,€and€was€granted€via€order€dated€February€3,€2003Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ó•#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€based€solely€on€the€interpretationÐ ° Ðof€the€law€in€òòPonteóó.€€Petitioner€noted€an€appeal€from€the€judgments€entered€pursuant€to€thatÐ ° Ðorder.€€Respondents€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,€which€was€granted€via€order€datedÏJune€12,€2003.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹g–#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹›Š#ÔÐ ° ÐÓ‹Óò òòòÓ€ÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔSupplemental€Statement€of€Factsó óóóÐ ° Ðòòò òóóó óÓ  Óà  àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹%˜#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔPetitioner€provides€the€following€supplemental€statement€of€facts€to€complement€theÐ 0€ ÐAgreed€Statement€of€Facts€in€Lieu€of€Transcript,€pursuant€to€Rules€8„501(g)€and€8„411.€ÏMindful€that€the€rules€call€for€a€concise€statement€of€facts,€and€that€the€issue€before€theÏCourt€is€one€of€law,€Petitioner€observes€that€if€the€Court€is€to€consider€the€public€interestsÏat€stake,€additional€background€from€the€record€on€the€nature€of€Respondentsðð€business€isÏneeded.Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹Å˜#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÐ °%!$ ÐÓŠ˜Óò òòòThe€Advertisementsó óóóÐ 0'€"& ÐÓ  Óà  àOn€January€24,€February€14òòóó,€and€February€21,€2001,€Petitioner,€Bruce€Levitt,Ð °($( Ðreceived€advertisements€via€facsimile€for€which€he€did€not€give€Respondents€prior€expressÏpermission€or€invitation.€€E„46.€€These€advertisements,€copies€of€which€were€attached€toÐ °+', Ðboth€the€original€complaint€and€the€Amended€Class€Action€Complaint€as€exhibits€A,€B€andÏC,€€promote€travel€packages€priced€at€$349€per€person,€and€solicit€calls€to€800„208„9641€forÏtravel€reservations.€€E„22„24.€€The€number€800„457„5410€is€printed€to€request€deletion€fromÏan€unidentified€fax€number€database.€€These€advertisements€do€not€identify€the€fax€senderÏ(broadcaster)€or€the€entity€whose€products€or€services€they€promote.€ÌÓ]›Óòòò òJD&T€Enterprises,€Inc.ó óóóÐ 0 €  ÐÓ  Óà  àRespondent€JD&T€Enterprises,€Inc.€is€a€provider€of€travel€services€based€in€CaliforniaÏusing€the€trade€name€ð ðTravel€to€Go.ðð€€E„32„33.€€JD&T€retained€Creative€MarketingÏConcepts,€Inc.€(CMC)€to€provide€marketing€services€including€fax€broadcasting.€€Ms.€BunnÏ(of€JD&T)€€met€with€Neil€Lipsky€(of€CMC)€and€Kevin€Katz€(of€Fax.com)€at€Ms.€BunnððsÏoffice€to€discuss€using€Fax.com€as€a€fax€broadcaster€of€JD&Tððs€advertisements.€€Ms.€BunnÏlater€visited€Fax.com€to€see€its€operation€and€spoke€with€Mr.€Katz€several€times€by€phoneòò.€Ð 0€ ÐSee€óóMemorandum€in€Support€of€Petitionerððs€Motion€for€Sanctions€for€RespondentsððÐ ° ÐViolations€of€Court€Orders€and€for€Other€Relief,€filed€September€6,€2002,€R.€at€DocketÏ#0078000€at€p.€11.Ìà  àJD&T€says€the€method€for€determining€whether€any€particular€travel€ad€is€from€JD&TÏis€to€call€the€reservation€number€and€ask€whether€the€caller€has€reached€JD&T/ñ´Fññ³Fñððñ³Fññ´FññµFñ€ð ðñµFñTravel€toÏGo.ðð€€E„34„35.€€Petitioner€Levitt€followed€this€procedure€and€called€a€series€of€telephoneÏnumbers€on€August€9òòóó,€2002,€including€800„766„9450,€888„626„2311,€888„626„6608,€andÐ °$ Ð800„620„3820.€€The€individuals€who€answered€the€calls€to€each€of€these€numbers€told€Mr.ÏLevitt€he€had€reached€Travel€to€Go.€€E„37„38.€€These€same€reservation€telephone€numbersÏappear€on€several€other€fax€advertisements€in€addition€to€those€attached€to€the€complaintsÏ(E„53„58),€and€were€received€by€Mr.€Levitt€and€other€recipients€in€Maryland.€E„44„45;€E„59„¼68.€€Thus,€there€are€several€formats€and€layouts€of€€JD&T€ads€that€were€faxed€into€MarylandÏin€addition€to€the€exhibits€attached€to€the€complaints.€€According€to€the€FCC,€Fax.com€canÏbe€identified€as€the€fax€broadcaster€of€any€given€advertisement€by€referring€to€the€removalÏnumber,€relying€on€the€FCCððs€table€of€ð ðFax.com€Advertisers€and€Associated€Opt„outÐ °+'4 ÐNumbers.ðð€€E„103„105.€€This€method€likewise€confirms€that€Fax.com€is€the€sender€of€theÏadvertisements€at€E„53„58,€as€well€as€those€attached€to€the€complaints.€ÌòòóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà  àDespite€the€court€order€of€July€27,€2001€requiring€preservation€of€relevant€documents,Ð ° Ðas€of€July,€2002€JD&T€continued€to€shred€documents€as€they€reached€the€age€of€one€year,Ïand€never€considered€modifying€its€shredding€policy.€€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹î¦#ÔR.€at€Docket€#0078000€at€p.€14.€€Ð °  ÐÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà  àJD&T€hired€three€marketing€firms€in€sequence:€Millenium€Travel€during€the€summerÐ 0 €  Ðof€2000,€CMC€from€November,€2000€to€June,€2001,€and€Platinum€Travel€from€June,€2001Ïto€at€least€July,€2002Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹k¨#Ô€(R.€at€Docket€#0078000,€p.€16),€and€paid€them€commissions€of€70%Ð 0€  Ðof€gross€sales€(òòId.óó,€p.€17).€€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔOn€hiring€each,€JD&T€contemplated€that€fax€broadcasting€wouldÐ °  Ðbe€included.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ª#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€The€marketing€contract€between€JD&T€and€CMC€provides€that€CMC€isÐ 0€  Ðrequired€to€handle€problems€related€to€faxing,€and€pay€fines€for€ð ðviolations.ðð€€òòId.óó,€p.€16€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¢ª#ԀР° ÐWeekly€sales€records€were€kept,€but€were€never€produced€in€discovery.€€òòId.óó€€The€price€ofÐ 0€ Ð$349€in€the€JD&T€advertisements€was€determined€jointly€by€JD&T€and€CMC.,€R.€at€DocketÏ#0078000,€p.€14.€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€According€to€Ms.€Bunn,€the€marketing€side€of€JD&T€Enterprises,€Inc.Ð 0€ Ðgenerates€almost€no€paper€or€electronic€records,€and€whatever€is€generated€has€either€beenÏshredded€òòóóor€accidentally€lost€via€computer€failure,€with€no€backup.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹’¬#Ô€€òòId.€óóat€15.Ð 0€ ÐÓ›žÓòòò òFax.com,€Inc.ó óóóÐ °  ÐÓ  Óà  àFax.com,€Inc.€is€a€fax€broadcaster,€transmitting€messages€to€telephone€facsimileÏmachines€on€behalf€of€others€for€a€fee.€€It€specializes€in€faxing€to€numbers€contained€in€itsÏdatabase€which€it€touts€as€ð ðthe€industryððs€largest€fax€number€databaseðð€at€16€million,€to€beÏincreased€by€another€16€million€ð ðsoon.ðð€€E„85.€€In€2000€and€2001€Fax.com€received€sixÏcitations€from€the€FCC€for€apparent€violations€of€the€TCPA€for€sending€unsolicitedÏadvertisements€via€facsimile.€€E„27,€Items€1„6;€E„86„87.€€Despite€those€citations,€Fax.comÏcontinued€to€send€unsolicited€advertisements€via€facsimile.€€E„87.€€Recent€advertisementsÏfaxed€by€Fax.com€and€tracked€by€the€FCC€include€some€from€Travel€to€Go.€€E„105.€€TheÏFCC€has€confirmed€that€these€ads€were€sent€by€Fax.com.€€E„88.€€Ads€faxed€by€Fax.com,€Inc.Ïhave€created€significant€disruption€and€inconvenience€to€the€recipients€(E„88„89),€€routinelyÐ °+'4 Ðfail€to€identify€Fax.com€or€the€advertiser,€and€result€in€complaints€by€recipients€aboutÏunsuccessful€requests€to€be€deleted€from€Fax.comððs€database.€€E„90.€€Those€reachingÏFax.com€have€encountered€hostility,€misrepresentation€and€unresponsiveness.€€E„90„91.€€TheÏFCC€considers€Fax.com€a€fax€sender€and€not€a€mere€disinterested€fax€broadcaster.€€E„92.€ÏThe€FCC€concluded:ÌÓ€˜ÓÓ6®ÓÓÓà8  àð ð.€.€.€Fax.com€uses€its€own€extensive€distribution€list€of€telephone€facsimileÏnumbers€to€send€its€clientsðð€advertisements,€and...€knowingly€sendsÏadvertisements€to€such€numbers€without€regard€to€whether€the€facsimileÏmachine€owner€or€responsible€party€either€granted€permission€to€send€theÏadvertisement€or€had€an€established€business€relationship€with€theÏadvertiser€of€Fax.com.€€In€addition,€Fax.com€apparently€reviews€the€text€ofÏits€clientððs€advertisements,€not€only€to€assist€with€graphic€design,€but€alsoÏto€assess€content.€€Such€conduct€is€clear€evidence€Fax.comððs€high€degree€ofÏinvolvement€in€the€unlawful€activity.€€Moreover,€the€staffððs€citationsÏprovided€Fax.com€with€actual€notice€that€its€fax€broadcasting€activities€doÏnot€comply€with€federal€law.ðð€€E„92„93.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  àð ðThe€FCC€has€determined€that€Fax.comððs€primary€business€activity€is€itself€aÏmassive€on„going€violation€of€Section€227€(b)(1)(C)€of€the€act€and€SectionÏ64.1200€(a)(3)€of€the€Commissionððs€rules,€and€Fax.com€is€well€aware€of€this€fact.€ÏFax.comððs€primary€commercial€offering€is€a€fax€broadcasting€service€that€clearlyÏdoes€not€comply€with€federal€restrictions€governing€facsimile€advertisements.€...ÏWe€conclude€that€this€unlawful€undertaking€merits€maximum€forfeitures€for€eachÏof€the€violations€at€issue€here.ðð€€E„95.€Ð (#(# ÐÌÓ…³ÓÓ€ˆ™ÓÓ  Óà  àThe€FCC€imposed€forfeitures,€or€fines,€against€Fax.com€in€the€amount€of€$11,000€perÏviolation,€for€a€total€of€$5,349,000.€€E„100.Ìà  àThe€FCC€noted€that€Fax.com€engaged€in€a€pattern€of€deception€and€intimidation€toÏconceal€its€involvement€in€sending€prohibited€faxes€and€to€frustrate€consumerððs€efforts€toÏexercise€the€statutory€private€right€of€action.€€E„95.€€At€least€one€of€Fax.comððs€employees,ÏCharles€Martin,€has€falsely€identified€himself€in€court€as€ð ðcompliance€managerðð€for€one€ofÏFax.comððs€advertising€clients.€€The€FCC€found€that€this€deception€subverts€the€judicialÏdecision„making€process€and€skews€the€statutory€private€right€of€action€by€insuring€that€theÐ °*&, Ðcourt€does€not€have€an€accurate€record€on€which€to€base€its€decision.€€E„96.€€Mr.€Martin€hasÏalso€threatened€to€file€counterclaims€in€California€against€those€seeking€redress€in€otherÏstates€under€the€TCPA€for€unsolicited€faxes€sent€by€Fax.com.€€E„96.€€Mr.€Martin€has€alsoÏissued€threatening€letters€to€fax€recipients€seeking€redress€for€faxes€under€the€TCPA,€usingÏthe€return€address€of€the€advertisers,€rather€than€that€of€Fax.com,€his€true€employer.€€In€someÏof€these€cases€the€postmark€on€the€advertiserððs€envelope€was€from€Alisa€Viejo,€California,ÏFax.comððs€corporate€headquarters,€rather€than€the€advertiserððs€true€location.€€Fax.comððsÏdeception€is€part€of€a€concerted€effort€to€discourage€private€enforcement€actions€under€theÏTCPA.€€E„97.€ÌÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹æš#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôòòò òFaxcastingó óóóÐ 0€  Ðà  àFax.com€uses€ð ðwar€dialingðð€or€ð ðfax„castingðð€to€automatically€dial€all€telephoneÏnumbers€within€an€exchange,€testing€for€fax€lines,€and€recording€the€results€in€databases€ofÏfax€numbers.€E„99.€€Fax.com€engages€individuals€to€subscribe€to€additional€telephone€lines,Ïand€to€house€war€dialing€or€fax„casting€equipment€(Faxcaster)€tied€to€those€lines€in€theirÏresidences.€€E„100;€E„72„74.€€The€host€may€not€comprehend€that€the€machine€will€conductÏfax„casting.€€E„72,€ðð5.Ìà  àOne€name€used€for€registration€of€telephone€lines€tied€to€a€Faxcaster€is€ð ðRobertÏBattaglia,ðð€which€has€thus€appeared€in€the€Caller€ID€windows€of€recipients€of€FaxcasterÏcalls.€€Irate€recipients€of€the€Faxcaster€calls€responded€by€placing€calls€to€ð ðRobert€Battaglia.ðð€ÏAs€shown€by€the€Affidavits€of€Robert€and€Deborah€Battaglia€of€Parkville,€Maryland,€bothÏwere€hounded€and€puzzled€by€the€irate€calls€they€received,€as€they€had€no€knowledge€of€theÏFaxcaster€activity€that€caused€the€nuisance€in€the€first€place.€€E„68a„71.Ìà  àIn€a€unique€analysis€of€a€Fax.com€Faxcaster,€Steven€Todd€Kirsch,€an€expert€inÏcomputer€software€and€hardware€holding€degrees€in€electrical€engineering€and€computerÏscience€from€the€Massachusetts€Institute€of€Technology,€and€himself€a€ð ðdot„comðð€successÏstory,€downloaded€data€from€two€Fax.com€Faxcasters.€€E„72„74.€€He€examined€the€data€andÏdetermined€that€the€Faxcaster€units€conduct€two€functions:€fax€marketing,€in€which€theyÐ °+'4 Ðbroadcast€thousands€facsimile€transmissions,€and€fax„casting,€in€which€they€dial€all€9,999Ïnumbers€in€each€targeted€telephone€exchange€and€detect€and€store€the€fax€numbers.€€E„73.€ÏFaxcaster€data€showing€the€transmissions€sent€is€apparently€deleted€from€the€FaxcasterÏwithin€a€few€days,€which€is€enough€time€for€data€on€thousands€of€transmissions€toÏaccumulate.€€E„73,€ðð9.€€Mr.€Kirsch€received€Faxcaster€calls€at€his€home€in€San€Jose,ÏCalifornia€from€ð ðRobert€Battagliaðð€(per€his€caller€ID),€and€each€of€those€calls€was€routed€toÏhis€home€fax€machine,€which€received€advertisements€showing€a€Fax.com€removal€number.€ÏE„74.€€Thus,€the€name€ð ðRobert€Battagliaðð€has€been€used€for€Fax.comððs€Faxcaster€calls€or€faxÏtransmissions€at€least€to€numbers€in€Maryland€and€San€Jose,€California.ÌÓ8¹Óòòò òFax.com€Recordsó óóóÐ 0€  ÐÓ  Óà  àFax.com€invoices€its€clients€for€fax€transmissions.€€For€example,€8,986€faxÏtransmissions€cost€$5,669.02,€plus€$75€job€set„up€fee,€for€a€total€of€$5,744.02€(E„110);€orÏ767,283€fax€transmissions€shown€in€Fax.comððs€invoice€at€E„118.€€Fax.com€receives€paymentÏfrom€its€clients€pursuant€to€these€billings,€sometimes€including€a€voucher€that€identifies€theÏpayment€amount,€invoice€date,€invoice€number€and€Fax.comððs€payee.€€E„110„a.Ìà  àFax.com€uses€a€form€entitled€ð ðProfile€Results€and€Campaign€Submittal€Formðð€thatÏshows€the€ð ðFax€Count€Numberðð€(e.g.€132,500)€and€the€ð ðprofile/campaign€nameðð€(E.g.€Ïð ðBaltimore_1228kvðð),€and€includes€other€information€including€the€ð ðdrop€dateðð,€the€ð ðtimeÏframe,ðð€the€ð ðNo.€paid€for,ðð€and€the€schedule€for€faxing€by€batches.€€(e.g.€Two€batches€ofÏ5,000€to€be€sent€at€7:00€a.m.€and€each€hour€thereafter€until€12:00€noon,€and€a€similarÏschedule€the€following€day).€€E„111„113.€€Fax.com€can€list€for€a€costumer€the€quantity€ofÏavailable€fax€numbers€in€Fax.comððs€database€for€selected€cities€or€regions€(e.g.€Annapolis:Ï4,335;€Baltimore:€25,€293;€...€Ellicott€City:€2,266,€etc.).€€E„114.€€Fax.com€uses€anÏArtwork/Layout€Approval€Form€to€communicate€with€its€advertising€customer€on€layout€andÏapproval€of€artwork.€€E„115„117.€€A€final,€approved€layout€for€the€advertisement€is€markedÏð ðcompleted.ðð€€E„117.€€A€Sales€Order€identifies€the€ð ðservice€provided€(ð ðfax€broadcastingðð),Ïthe€range€of€dates€for€the€broadcasts,€the€ð ðblock€unitsðð€(ð ð443,642"),€the€rate€per€unit€and€theÐ °+'4 Ðtotal€cost.€€This€form€is€signed€by€the€customer€and€faxed€to€Fax.com.€€E„119„120.€€Fax.comÏalso€has€a€standard€fax€broadcasting€agreement€that€it€enters€with€its€advertising€customerÏ(E„124„125),€and€an€Indemnity€Agreement.€€E„126.€€Ìà  àDespite€Petitionerððs€discovery€requests€covering€the€above€described€documents,€andÏthe€discovery€orders€issued€by€the€court,€the€Fax.com€documents€described€above€were€notÏproduced€in€the€instant€case.€€Their€existence€was€known€or€obtained€from€other€litigationÏand€other€sources€through€counselððs€efforts.€€While€waiting€for€a€ruling€on€discovery€duringÏone€of€Petitionerððs€later€discovery€motions,€Petitioner€advised€the€Court€of€the€types€ofÏdocuments€to€be€expected.€€E„107.€€The€dismissal€under€òòPonteóó€occurred€before€a€ruling€wasÐ °  Ðmade€on€that€motion.Ìà  àFax.com€was€uncooperative€and€evasive€in€discovery€throughout€this€case,€requiringÏseveral€discovery€motions€and€orders.€€E„25,€E„28,€E„30,€and€R.€at€Docket€#0078000.€ÏFax.com€has€been€repeatedly€sanctioned€for€discovery€failures€in€other€TCPA€fax€litigation.€Ïò òÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôó óòòSee€óóMemorandum€of€Law€in€Support€of€Petitionersðð€Motion€to€Compel€RespondentsÐ 0€ ÐFax.com,€Inc.€and€JD&T€Enterprises,€Inc.€to€€Produce€DocumentsÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹qÓ#Ô,€R.€at€Docket€#€001600,Ð ° Ðp.€2.Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹5¿#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÐ 0€ Ðà  àPetitioner€sought€in€discovery€to€obtain€the€databases€used€by€Respondents€as€ð ðtargetÏdataðð€and€ð ðresults€dataðð€for€the€fax€transmissions,€as€well€as€the€quantity€of€transmissionsÏsent€into€Maryland.€€Despite€the€discovery€motions€and€orders,€this€data€was€never€formallyÏproduced€by€Respondents.€€However,€in€a€letter€marked€ð ðfor€settlement€purposes€onlyððÏRespondents€disclosed€the€quantity€of€facsimile€transmissions€into€Maryland€during€a€singleÏmonth€of€the€particular€travel€fax€advertisement€received€by€Petitioner€Levitt.€€PetitionersÏchallenge€the€propriety€of€shrouding€this€discovery€data,€which€by€all€rights€should€haveÏbeen€produced€much€earlier€in€response€to€discovery€requests€and€orders,€under€the€guiseÏof€a€settlement€communication.€€These€issues€are€addressed€in€the€Memorandum€in€SupportÏof€Petitionerððs€Motion€for€Reconsideration€dated€February€26òòthóó,€2003,€R.€at€DocketÐ 0*€%2 Ð#0100001,€which€is€not€included€in€the€Record€Extract€because€of€Respondentsðð€challengeÐ °+'4 Ðto€disclosure€of€the€quantity€data€on€transmissions€into€Maryland.ÌÓÀÈÓò òòòñ¶FñÌñ¶FñUnsolicited€faxes€in€Marylandó óóóÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà  àUnsolicited€advertisements€via€facsimile€have€provoked€complaints€ñ»Fñby€recipients€ñ»Fññ¸FñtoÏthe€ñ¸Fññ·Fñby€ñ·Fññ¹FñMarylandÏresidentsÏto€theÏñ¹FñAttorney€GeneralñºFñ€of€MarylandñºFñ.€These€complaints€demonstrate€the€annoyance€created€byÏreceipt€of€these€faxes,€and€the€recipientsðð€frustration€at€the€failure€of€the€senders€to€deleteÏrecipientsðð€fax€numbers€upon€request.€(See€samples€at€E„145„157)€€(ð ðI€have€tried€to€deal€withÏthis€problem€myself€but€feel€that€I€am€making€no€headway€.€.€.ðð€E„147;€ð ðI€have€requested€thatÏthe€enclosed€people€remove€our€fax€number€about€seven€times€over€the€past€few€weeks,€butÏI€still€keep€getting€these€faxes€.€.€.€.€E„150).€€The€Attorney€General€does€not€get€involved€inÏð ðbusiness„to„business€complaintsðð€and€directs€businesses€that€receive€unsolicited€faxes€toÏthe€Better€Business€Bureau€for€assistance.€€€E„146A.à p àÐ 0€ ÐÌÓ€"¹ÓÓ©ÙÓòòò òóóÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹´Ô#ÔÓ€ÓÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔV.€à0  àà0` (#(#àòòARGUMENTóóó óÐ0€` (#` (# ÐÓ€¨ÝÓÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔòòÓÓà  àò òóóA.€à0 ` àState€courts€have€no€constitutional€authority€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€a€federalÐ ° Ðlaw€and€may€not€reject€state€court€jurisdiction€over€private€TCPAÏòòactions€unless€barred€by€a€neutral€rule€of€court€administration.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹BÞ#Ôа` (#` (# Ðó óóóÓdÞÓÓ€ÃÝÓÌà  àà ` àò ò1.€€TCPA€background€related€to€unsolicited€fax€advertisementsó óñÊFñ׃3×ñÊFññÊFñ׃8×ñÊFñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0€! ÐÓ  Óà  àThe€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227€(TCPA)€creates€a€privateÏright€of€action€against€the€senders€of€unsolicited€advertisements€via€facsimile.€€Under€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô47Ð 0!€% ÐU.S.C.€ðð€227Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ÿá#Ô(b)(3)€the€recipient€of€such€an€unsolicited€advertisement€may€file€suit€in€stateÐ °"' Ðcourt€ð ðif€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rules€of€court€of€[that]€Stateðð€to€obtain€monetaryÏor€injunctive€relief€as€provided€in€(b)(3)€of€the€TCPA.Ìà  àCongress€passed€the€TCPA€in€1991€to€"protect€the€privacy€interests€of€residentialÐ 0'€"- Ðtelephone€subscribers€by€placing€restrictions€on€unsolicited,€automated€telephone€calls€to€theÏhome€and€to€òòfacilitate€interstate€commerceóó€by€restricting€certain€uses€of€facsimile€machinesÐ 0€ Ðand€automatic€dialers.ðð€€S.€Rep.€No.€102-178,€at€1€(1991),€reprinted€in€1991ÏU.S.C.C.A.N.1968€(emphasis€added).Ìà  àThe€ð ðjunk€faxðð€restrictions€of€the€TCPA€addressed€complaints€from€business€ownersÏthat€faxes€were€interfering€with€their€business€operations.€€The€comments€of€members€ofÏCongress€at€the€1991€hearings€bear€this€out.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó€H.€R.€Rep.€No.€102-317€(1991)€at€25Ð °  Ð("[B]usinesses€have€begun€to€express€concern€about€the€interference,€interruptions€andÏexpense€that€junk€faxes€have€placed€upon€them...");€137€Cong.€Rec.€S9840-02€(Daily€ed.ÏJuly€11,€1991,€statement€of€Sen.€Hollings)€€"These€junk€fax€advertisements€can€be€a€severeÏimpediment€to€carrying€out€legitimate€business€practices€and€ought€to€be€abolished."€137ÏCong.€Rec.€S16207,€daily€ed.€November€7,€1991€(statement€of€Sen.€Inouye).€€SenatorÏBentsen€commented€that€advertisers€"must€learn€not€to€tie€up€the€telephone€or€fax€lines€ofÏbusinesses€without€prior€consent,"€and€further€stated,€"[W]e€must€enact€this€bill€in€order€toÏavoid€the€unreasonable€interference€with€...€the€normal€conduct€of€public€and€privateÏbusiness."€òòIdóó.€€Another€member€stated:Ð 0€ ÐÓ€ÜßÓÓÜàÓÓÓÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ºÝ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà8  àSimply€put,€the€problem€is€this:€Unsolicited€advertising€is€beginning€to€clogÐ °  Ðfax€lines,€restricting€the€owner's€ability€to€use€their€machines€for€theÏpurposes€they€are€originally€bought€for€and€generating€operating€costs€theÏusers€can't€control.€Unlike€junk€mail,€which€can€be€discarded,€orÏsolicitation€of€phone€calls,€which€can€be€reused€or€hung€up,€junk€fax€ties€upÏthe€recipient's€line€until€it€has€been€received€and€printed.€The€recipient'sÏmachine€is€unavailable€for€business€and€he€or€she€incurs€a€high€cost€forÏsupplies€before€knowing€whether€the€message€is€either€wanted€or€needed.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓ"éÓÓ€ÓÓ  Ó135€òòCong.óó€òòRec.óó€E1462€(daily€ed.€May€2,€1989)€(Statement€of€Rep.€Markey).Ð °%!) Ðòòóóà  àThe€adverse€effects€on€business€caused€by€unsolicited€faxes€were€well€recognizedÐ 0'€"+ Ðwhen€the€TCPA€was€enacted.€€Therefore,€ð ðCongress€designed€a€remedy€that€would€take€intoÏaccount€the€difficult€to€quantify€business€interruption€costs€imposed€upon€recipients€ofÏunsolicited€fax€advertisements,€effectively€deter€the€unscrupulous€practice€of€shifting€theseÐ °+'1 ÐÔ_Ôcosts€to€unwitting€recipients€of€"junk€faxes",€and€"provide€adequate€incentive€for€anÏindividual€plaintiff€to€bring€suit€on€his€own€behalf."€€òòKenro,€Inc.€v.€Fax€Daily,€Inc.óó,€962€F.Ð 0€ ÐSupp.€1162,€1165€(S.€D.€Ind.€1997)òò.Ð ° Ðóóà  àThe€government€has€a€substantial€interest€in€preventing€advertisers€from€unfairlyÐ 0 € Ðshifting€advertising€costs€to€consumers€and€"return[ing]€a€measure€of€control€to€...€ownersÏof€facsimile€machines."€H.R.Rep.€No.€317,€at€6.€€€Because€"unsolicited€commercial€faxÏsolicitations€are€responsible€for€the€bulk€of€advertising€cost€shifting€...€banning€them€is€aÏreasonable€means€to€achieve€Congress'€goal€of€reducing€cost€shifting."€òòDestination€Ventures,Ð 0€  ÐLtd.€v.€Federal€Communications€Commissionóó,€46€F.€3d€54,€at€56€(9th€Cir.1995).€The€earlierÐ °  Ðdecision€in€that€case€stated€that:ÌÓ&ìÓÓ€ìÓÓÓà0  àCongress'€interest€in€protecting€consumers€from€the€economic€harm€resulting€fromÏthe€'unfair€shifting€of€the€cost€of€advertising€from€the€advertiser€to€the€unwittingÏcustomer'€and€other€harms€that€could€be€associated€with€unsolicited€faxÏsolicitations€(unsolicited€faxes€can€interfere€with€a€machine's€use)€is€a€€€€Ïsubstantial€interest€which€is€identified€in€the€TCPA's€legislative€history.€òòа(#(# ÐÌóóÓòÓòòÓ€ÓÓ  ÓDestination€Venturesóó,€844€F.€Supp.€632,€637€(D.€Or.€1994).Ð ° Ðà  àRapid€advances€in€computer€and€telecommunications€technology€have€spawned€aÏlarge€and€very€efficient€fax€broadcasting€industry.€€This€has€in€turn€has€led€to€severalÏappellate€decisions€under€the€TCPA€in€recent€years,€all€of€which€(except€one€discussed€òòinfraÐ 0€  Ðóówhich€was€later€rejected€by€a€higher€court€in€that€state)€recognize€the€federal€cause€of€actionÐ °" Ðin€state€court.€The€ruling€by€the€Court€of€Special€Appeals€(CSA)€in€the€òòPonteóó€case,€denyingÐ 0!€$ Ðsuch€private€actions,€is€an€anomaly,€and€ð ðfrustratesðð€and€ð ðunderminesðð€the€GeneralÏAssemblyððs€intent€to€protect€citizens€from€unsolicited€faxes.€€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô(Brief€of€the€State€of€MarylandÐ 0$€( Ðas€Amicus€Curie€in€Support€of€the€Petitioner€in€òòPonteóó,€pp.€2,€3)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ ÷#Ô.Ð °%!* ÐÓ€êóÓÓüóÓÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôòòò òóóó óÓÓà0  àò ò2.€€The€Supremacy€Clause€of€the€U.€S.€Constitution€and€Article€2€of€theÐ 0'€", ÐMaryland€Declaration€of€Rights€compel€state€courts€to€hear€actions€broughtÏunder€federal€statutes,€including€the€TCPAÐ (#(# ÐòòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ø#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÌÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹_ù#Ôó óóóÓ0øÓÓ€ÓÓ  Óà  àState€courts€Ô‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôhave€an€original€obligation€to€hear€cases€under€federal€law€like€the€TCPAÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹õù#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ 0+€&0 Ðunder€the€Supremacy€Clause,€which€is€binding€upon€states,€courts,€judges€and€the€peopleÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹€ú#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.€Ð ° ÐThe€Supremacy€Clause€states€that:ÌÓ€¾ùÓÓÐùÓÓÓà0  àThis€Constitution,€and€the€Laws€of€the€United€States€.€.€.€shall€be€the€supreme€LawÏof€the€Land;€òòand€the€Judges€in€every€State€shall€be€bound€therebyóó,€any€thing€in€theÐ ° ÐConstitution€or€Laws€of€any€state€to€the€Contrary€notwithstanding.Ð (#(# ÐÌÓ¬ûÓÓ€ÓÓ  ÓSupremacy€Clause,€U.S.€Constitution,€art.€VI,€ðð€2Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹.û#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€(emphasis€added).€€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹qý#ÔThe€Supreme€CourtÐ °  Ðhas€stated€this€proposition€repeatedly,€òòinter€aliaóó,€in€òòMcKesson€Corp.€v.€Division€of€AlcoholicÐ 0 €  ÐBeverages€&€Tobaccoóó,€496€U.S.€18,€29€(1990):€ð ðState€courts€must€interpret€and€enforceÐ °  Ðfaithfully€the€ððsupreme€Law€of€the€Landðð€and€their€decisions€are€subject€to€review€by€[theÏSupreme]€Court.ððÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ °  Ðà  àThe€Maryland€Declaration€of€Rights€recognizes€this€same€fundamental€constitutionalÏconcept:ÌÓ€üüÓÓýÓÓÓà0  àÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹Mÿ#ÔÔ‡?Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔThe€Constitution€of€the€United€States,€andòò€the€Laws€made,€or€which€shall€beÐ 0€ Ðmade,€in€pursuance€thereofóó,€and€all€Treaties€made,€or€which€shall€be€made,€underÐ 0€ Ðthe€authority€of€the€United€States,€are,€and€òòshall€be€the€Supreme€Law€of€the€Stateóó;Ð 0€ Ðand€the€Judges€of€this€State,€and€all€the€People€of€this€State,€are,€and€shall€beÏbound€thereby;€anything€in€the€Constitution€or€Law€of€this€State€to€the€contraryÏnotwithstanding.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹?Š@¹P#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ0€(#(# ÐÌÓÓÓ€ÓÓ  ÓMd.€Declaration€of€Rights,€Art.€2,€as€quoted€in€òòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹#ÔRobinson€v.€Bunchóó,€367€Md.€432,€442€at€n.7,Ð 0€ Ð788€A.€2d€636€(2002)€(emphasis€in€originalÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô).€Ð ° Ðà  àStates€are€presumed€to€have€concurrent€jurisdiction€over€federal€claims,€with€fewÏexceptions:€ð ðÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹µ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôthe€presumption€of€concurrent€jurisdiction€can€be€rebutted€by€an€explicitÐ °!# Ðstatutory€directive,€by€unmistakable€implication€from€legislative€history,€or€by€a€clearÏincompatibility€between€state„court€jurisdiction€and€federal€interests.ðð€€òòGulf€Offshore€Co.Ð °$ ' Ðv.€Mobil€Oil€Corp.óó,€453€U.S.€473,€478€(1981).€€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹}#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔSince€there€is€no€explicit€direction€in€theÐ 0&€!) ÐTCPA€or€its€legislative€history€to€divest€states€of€jurisdiction,€or€any€clear€incompatibilityÏproblems,€states€are€presumed€to€have€concurrent€jurisdiction.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€The€concurrent€jurisdictionÐ 0)€$- Ðcreated€by€tÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹=#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôhe€TCPA€is€in€a€sense€split,€with€state€attorney€general€and€FCC€enforcementÐ °*&/ Ðactionable€in€federal€court,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(f),€and€private€citizen€suits€actionable€in€stateÏcourt,€47€U.S.C.€ððððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹½#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†+X<X‹+Š@¹Wé#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹X+X<Ô€227(b)(3)€and€(c)(5).€Ð 0€ Ðà  àWhen€Congress€acts€pursuant€to€its€lawful€power,€it€establishes€policy€for€all:€ð ðThatÏpolicy€is€as€much€the€policy€of€[the€state]€as€if€the€act€had€emanated€from€its€own€legislature,Ïand€should€be€respected€accordingly€in€the€courts€of€the€state.ðð€€òòMondou€v.€New€York,€N.H.Ð °  Ð&€H.R.€Co.óó€223€U.S.€1,€57€(1912).€òòóó€€A€unanimous€Supreme€Court€stated€that€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹Û#Ôð ðThe€federalÐ 0 €  Ðlaw€is€law€in€the€State€as€much€as€laws€passed€by€the€state€legislature.ððÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€òòHowlett€v.€Roseóó,€496Ð °  ÐU.S.€356,€380€(1990).€€In€other€wordsÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹‰ #ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô,€the€TCPA€should€be€read,€analyzed€and€interpretedÐ 0€  Ðjust€as€if€the€Maryland€Legislature€itself€had€passed€the€TCPA.€€ÌÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹! #Ôòòóóà  àThe€duty€of€state€courts€to€apply€federal€law€is€inherent€in€our€nationððs€constitutionalÐ 0€  Ðsystem€of€government.€òò€See,€e.g.,€Testa€v.€Kattóó,€330€U.S.€386,€389„90€(1947);€òòMartin€v.Ð ° ÐHunterððs€Lessee,€óó14€U.S.€304,€340€(1816).€€Consequently,€when€Congress€acts€within€itsÐ 0€ Ðenumerated€powers€to€create€a€federal€cause€of€action,€even€one€that€imposes€liability€on€theÏstates€themselves,€state€courts€of€general€jurisdiction€may€not€refuse€to€hear€the€federalÏclaim.€òò€Id.€óó(reversing€a€state€courtððs€refusal€to€enforce€the€double€damage€provisions€of€theÐ ° ÐEmergency€Price€Control€Act).Ìà  àA€Stateððs€assertion€of€sovereign€immunity€can€not€alter€the€duty€of€State€courts€toÏenforce€federal€law€that€imposes€liability€on€the€states€when€that€law€has€been€validlyÏenacted€pursuant€to€Congressððs€enumerated€powers.€€Notably,€òòHowlett€óómade€clear€that€a€stateÐ °$ Ðmay€not€refuse€to€hear€a€federal€cause€of€action€by€relying€upon€state€law€based€sovereignÏimmunity€or€by€claiming€a€lack€of€jurisdiction€due€to€sovereign€immunity.€òòHowlettóó,€496€U.S.Ð °"( Ðat€378„83;€òòTesta€v.€Kattóó,€330€U.S.€at€393€(ð ðstate€court€cannot€ððrefuse€to€enforce€the€rightÐ 0$€* Ðarising€from€the€law€of€the€United€States€because€of€conceptions€of€impolicy€or€want€ofÏwisdom€on€the€part€of€Congress€in€having€called€into€play€its€lawful€powers.ðððð)€(quotingÏòòMinneapolis€&€St.Louis€R.€Co.€v.€Bombolisóó,€241€U.S.€at€222).€Ð °($0 Ðà  àIn€òòHowlett€óóthe€Court€was€asked€to€decide€whether€common„law€sovereign€immunityÐ 0*€%2 Ðwas€available€to€a€state€school€board€to€preclude€a€claim€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.€€The€stateÐ °+'4 Ðcourt€had€dismissed€the€lawsuit€on€grounds€that€the€school€board,€as€an€arm€of€the€state,€hadÏnot€waived€its€sovereign€immunity€in€ðð1983€cases.€€The€Supreme€Court€noted€that€theÏdismissal€in€state€court€raised€concern€that€the€state€may€be€evading€federal€law€andÏdiscriminating€against€federal€causes€of€action.€The€Supreme€Court€held€that€state€common„¼law€immunity€could€not€defeat€a€claim€under€a€federal€statute:ÌÓ€ÔÓÓæÓÓÓà8  àFederal€law€is€enforceable€in€state€courts€not€because€Congress€hasÏdetermined€that€federal€courts€would€otherwise€be€burdened€or€that€stateÏcourts€might€provide€a€more€convenient€forum€ð"ð€although€both€might€wellÏbe€true€ð"ð€but€because€the€Constitution€and€law€passed€pursuant€to€it€are€asÏmuch€laws€in€the€States€as€laws€passed€by€the€state€legislature.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓëÓòòÓ€ÓÓ  ÓHowlettóó,€496€U.S.€at€367.€€Accordingly,€a€state€may€refuse€to€enforce€a€federal€statute€againstÐ 0€  Ða€state€agency€under€very€limited€circumstances.€òò€See€id.€óóat€369„72.€ð ðA€state€court€may€notÐ ° Ðdeny€a€federal€right,€when€the€parties€are€properly€before€it,€in€the€absence€of€a€ððvalidÏexcuse.ðððð€òòIdóó.€at€369€(quoting€òòDouglas€v.€New€York,€N.H.€&€H.R.€Co.óó,€279€U.S.€377€(1929)).€Ð ° ÐAn€excuse€that€is€ð ðinconsistent€with€or€violates€federal€law€is€not€a€valid€excuse.ðð€òòHowlettóó,Ð 0€ Ð496€U.S.€at€371.€ð ðWhen€Congress,€in€the€exertion€of€the€power€confided€to€it€by€theÏConstitution,€adopted€the€act,€it€spoke€for€all€the€people€and€all€the€States€and€therebyÏestablished€a€policy€for€all.ðð€òòIdóó.€€The€òòóóð ðvalid€excuseðð€exemption€simply€restates€prior€law:Ð ° Ðunless€an€ð ðunmistakably€clearðð€exception€is€spelled€out€in€the€statute,€state€courts€haveÏjurisdiction€over€actions€to€enforce€federal€statutes.€òòWill€v.€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔMich.€Dept.€of€State€PoliceÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹å#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ #ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôóó,€491Ð °" ÐU.S.€58,€65€(1989).Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ 0!€$ ÐÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹´#ÔÓ€£ÓÓµÓòòóóÓL€ Dí ('LÓÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôò òÓÓà0  à3.€€Congressional€intentÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ƒ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€to€limit€state€court€jurisdiction€over€enforcementÐ °"& Ðactions€brought€under€federal€statutes,€on€substantive€grounds,€rather€thanÏneutral€rules€of€court€administration,€must€be€ð ðunmistakably€clear.ððÐ (#(# Ðó óÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹þ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÌÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹8#ÔÓ¥ÓÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÓ€ÓÓ  Óà  àA€departure€from€the€long„established€constitutional€balance€between€state€andÐ °&"* Ðfederal€interests€including€state€respect€for€duly€promulgated€federal€laws€may€occur€onlyÏwhere€Congress€has€unambiguously€stated€its€intention€to€alter€the€ordinary€constitutionalÏdesign.€€òòWill€v.€Mich.€Dept.€of€State€Policeóó,€491€U.S.€at€65€(1989)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹‘#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€(ð ðIf€Congress€intends€toÐ 0+€&0 Ðalter€the€usual€constitutional€balance€between€the€States€and€the€Federal€Government,€it€mustÏmake€its€intention€to€do€so€òòunmistakably€clearóó€in€the€language€of€the€statute.ðð)€(citationsÐ 0€ Ðomitted)€(emphasis€added);€òòUnited€States€v.€Bassóó,€404€U.S.€336,€349€(1971)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹_!#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€(ð ðunlessÐ ° ÐCongress€conveys€its€purpose€clearly,€it€will€not€be€deemed€to€have€significantly€changedÏthe€federal„state€balanceðð);€òòUnited€States€v.€Nordic€Vill.,€Inc.óó,€503€U.S.€30,€33„34€(1992)Ð °  Ð(ð ðWaivers€of€the€Governmentððs€sovereign€immunity,€to€be€effective,€must€be€ððunequivocallyÏexpressedðððð),€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ù"#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔKilroy€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹©$#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôv.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ò$#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔSuperior€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹7%#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔCourtóó,€54€Cal.€App€4th€793,€817„818€(1997)€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹‚%#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹e#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô(quoting€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ò%#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔWillÐ °  ÐóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹‚&#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôand€òòBassóó).Ð 0€  Ðà  àJustice€OððConnor€noted€that€the€clear€statement€rule€concept€is€not€just€a€canon€ofÏstatutory€construction,€but€since€it€effects€the€constitutional€balance€of€powers€betweenÏfederal€and€state€sovereigns,€is€one€which€ð ðderives€from€the€Constitution€itself.ðð€€òòHilton€v.Ð ° ÐS.C.€Pub.€Rys.€Commððnóó,€502€U.S.€197,€209€(1991)€(OððConnor,€J.,€dissenting).€€€AllowingÐ 0€ Ða€state€veto€power€over€a€federal€law€alters€and€upsets€the€foundation€of€federal€supremacy,Ïand€upsetting€this€foundation€requires€explicitly€clear€direction€from€Congress.€€€StateÏrejection€of€federal€law€would€be€an€unconstitutional€and€invalid€act,€so€congressionalÏapprovalÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹à&#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹4&#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€must€be€unmistakably€clear.€òò€Maine€v.€Tayloróó€477€U.S.€131,€139€(1986)€(ð ðAnÐ 0€ Ðunambiguous€indication€of€congressional€intent€is€required€before€a€federal€statute€will€beÏread€to€authorize€otherwise€invalid€state€legislation.ðð);€òòC&C€Carbone,€Inc.€v.€Town€ofÐ 0€" ÐClarkstownóó,€511€U.S.€383,€408€(1994)€(ð ðCongress€must€be€ððunmistakably€clearðð€before€weÐ °$ Ðwill€conclude€that€it€intended€to€permit€state€regulation€which€would€otherwise€violate€theÏdormant€Commerce€Clause.ðð)€(OððConnor,€J.€concurring).Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹K*#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ *#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€This€clear€and€explicitÐ °"( ÐCongressional€statement€is€required€whether€it€is€Congress€or€the€state€that€will€be€the€bodyÏwhich€is€divesting€state€courts€from€their€presumed€original€jurisdiction€over€federal€laws.€Ï€à  àÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Ñ,#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔIt€is€possible€for€Congress€to€permit€the€states€to€engage€in€practices€otherwiseÐ 0'€". Ðunconstitutional€under€the€Commerce€Clause.€€òòMaine€v.€Taylor,€óó477òò€óóU.S.€at€138.€€However,Ð °($0 ÐaÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹-#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹K.#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ônyone€seeking€to€establish€that€Congress€intended€states€to€engage€in€an€otherwiseÐ 0*€%2 Ðunconstitutional€act€face€a€heavy€burden:€ð ðParties€seeking€to€argue€that€Congress€hasÐ °+'4 Ðauthorized€the€otherwise€invalid€[state]€legislation€face€a€heavy€burden.ðð€òòHazardous€WasteÐ ° ÐTreatment€Council€v.€South€Carolina,óó€945€F.2d€781,€790€(1990).€€The€clear€statement€ruleÐ 0€ Ðensures€ð ðthat€the€legislature€has€in€fact€faced,€and€intended€to€bring€into€issue,€the€criticalÏmatters€involved€in€the€judicial€decision.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Bassóó,€404€U.S.€336,€349€(1971).€Ð 0 € ЀThe€TCPAððs€legislative€history€is€devoid€of€the€supporting€debate,€committee€report€orÏdeliberative€record€created€by€Congress€necessary€to€satisfy€the€clear€statement€rule.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹m/#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€Sen.Ð 0 €  ÐHollingsðð€statement€that€Congress€could€not€constitutionally€dictate€to€states€how€toÏadminister€private€TCPA€actionsñÊFñ׃(×ñÊFññÊFñ׃C×ñÊFñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€indicates€that€any€intent€of€Congress€was€to€avoid€theÐ 0€  Ðconstitutional€thicket,€not€dive€into€and€alter€it.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹:3#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹¯/#ÔÔ‡X<XXX<ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÐ °  Ðà  àThe€TCPAððs€jurisdictional€language€ð ðif€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rules€ofÏcourt€of€a€Stateðð€falls€far€short€of€the€unambiguous€and€ð ðclear€statementðð€required€to€alterÏthe€constitutional€federal„state€balance.€€This€languageÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹*5#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€lacks€the€force€and€clarity€needed€toÐ 0€ Ðovercome€the€Supreme€Courtððs€repeated€and€long„standing€interpretation€of€the€SupremacyÏClause€to€mandate€state€court€jurisdiction€over€suits€to€enforce€federal€statutes.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹£6#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€ò òÐ 0€ ÐÌÓ€°ÓÓÂÓØØÓÓÝ ‚%é; ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚%é;_8Ýà0  àÔ2DíÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝThe€TCPAððs€ð ðif€otherwise€permittedðð€language€refers€to€neutral€rulesÐ 0€ Ðor€laws€governing€court€administration€and€procedures݃%é;_8Š8݌Р` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Î7#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹I5#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôó óÌÓM8Óòòò òó óóóÓ€T ÓÓ  Óà  àIn€the€absence€of€a€any€clear€statement€or€congressional€record€to€support€upsettingÐ 0€! Ðthe€state„federal€constitutional€balance,€and€in€light€of€Sen.€Hollingsðð€statements,€theÏlanguage€ð ðif€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rules€of€court€or€a€Stateðð€can€only€beÏunderstood€to€be€directed€at€state€court€procedures€and€administration.€€Ìà  àBalancing€the€Supremacy€Clause€against€statesðð€rights€under€the€Tenth€Amendment,Ïit€is€clear€that€federal€legislation€cannot€alter€a€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ì9#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôstateððs€òòprocedural€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ä<#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôlaw€in€order€to€vestÐ °%!+ Ðjurisdiction€in€state€court.€€There€is€no€requirement€under€the€Supremacy€Clause€that€a€stateÐ ° Ðòòcreateóó€a€court€competent€to€hear€the€case€in€which€the€federal€claim€is€presented.€The€generalÐ 0€ Ðrule,€ð ðbottomed€deeply€in€belief€in€the€importance€of€state€control€of€state€judicial€procedure,Ïis€that€federal€law€takes€the€state€courts€as€it€finds€them.ðð€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹"=#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Howlettóó,òò€supra,€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ ?#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô496€U.S.€at€372Ð 0 € Ð(quoting€Hart,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹|?#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔThe€Relations€Between€State€and€Federal€LawóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ô?#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô,€54€Colum.€L.€Rev.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹d@#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó489,€508€Ð °  Ð(1954))Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹½@#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹.:#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô;òò€see€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹'A#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôalsoóó€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹´A#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔClaflin€v.€Housemannóó,òòóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹B#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€93€U.S.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹aB#Ô130,Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€137€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹°B#Ô(1876)Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€(federal€claims€may€beÐ 0 €  Ðprosecuted€in€state€courts€ð ðcompetent€to€decide€rights€of€the€like€character€and€classðð€unlessÏCongress€grants€federal€courts€exclusive€jurisdiction);€òòsee€alsoóó€Biggerstaff,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ýB#ÔòòState€Courts€andÐ 0€  Ðthe€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act€of€1991:€Must€States€Opt„in?€Can€States€Opt„out?óóÐ °  Ð33€Conn.€L.€Rev.€404Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€òòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÎD#Ôóó(2001)Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.Ð 0€  ÐÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹E#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà  àThe€Supremacy€Clause€requires€state€courts€to€accept€jurisdiction€over€suits€toÐ ° Ðenforce€federal€statutes€unless€prevented€by€a€ð ðneutral€rule€of€judicial€administrationððÏÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹uE#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó(òòHowlettóó,òò€supra,€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹‰F#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô496€U.S.€at€374)€„€a€procedural€rule€„€that€bars€state€and€federal€claimsÐ ° Ðequally,€without€discrimination.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ëF#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€See,€e.g.,€Missouri€ex€rel.€Southern€R.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¯G#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔCo.€v.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹H#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔMayfieldóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹cH#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô,€340Ð 0€ ÐU.S.€1€(1950)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹°H#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€(state€court€could€refuse€to€hear€federal€cause€of€action€where€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹I#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôforum€nonÐ ° Ðconveniens€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ŸI#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôapplied€evenhandedly€to€state€and€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ J#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôfederal€claims);€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹qJ#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Herb€v.€PitcairnóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÇJ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô,€324€U.S.Ð 0€ Ð117€(1945)€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹K#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô(no€state€court€jurisdiction€where€venue€laws€evenly€applied);òò€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹‰K#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Douglas€v.€NewÐ °  ÐYork,€N.H.€&€H.R.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ L#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔCo.óó,€279€U.S.€377€(1929)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹…L#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€(no€jurisdiction€where€state€statute€permittedÐ 0€" Ðdiscretionary€dismissal€of€either€a€state€or€a€federal€claim€when€neither€the€plaintiff€nor€theÏdefendant€was€a€State€resident);€òò€see€alsoóó€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹âL#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔHowlettóó,òò€supra,€óó496òò€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹üM#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔU.S.€at€378€(ð ðThis€case€doesÐ 0!€& Ðnot€present€the€questions€whether€Congress€can€require€the€States€to€create€a€forum€with€theÏcapacity€to€enforce€federal€statutory€rights€or€to€authorize€service€of€process€on€parties€whoÏwould€not€otherwise€be€subject€to€the€courtððs€jurisdiction.ðð).Ìà  àThe€true€operative€question€the€ð ðif€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rules€of€courtððÏlanguage€raises€is€whether€the€Circuit€Courtððs€jurisdiction€is€barred€by€ð ða€neutral€state€ruleÏregarding€the€administration€of€the€courtsððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹aN#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔP#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó(òòHowlettóó,òò€supra,€496€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Q#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔU.S.€at€p.€372),€and€òònotóóÐ 0*€%2 Ðwhether€there€is€a€state€law€that€evinces€a€conflicting€policy€on€the€substantive€provisionsÐ °+'4 Ðof€the€TCPA,€as€the€CSA€incorrectly€decided.ñÊFñ׃S×ñÊFññÊFñ׃H×ñÊFñÝ ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€answer€for€this€class€action€and€allÐ ° ÐTCPA€cases€in€Maryland€is€an€unqualified€no.Ìà  àMaryland€examples€illustrating€how€neutral€rules€of€administration€that€couldÏpreclude€TCPA€claims€include€filing€a€TCPA€claim€for€injunctive€relief€under€47€U.S.C.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹€Q#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔóóððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹+T#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔòòÐ 0 € ÐóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹tT#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô227(b)(3)(A)€in€a€Maryland€District€Court€which€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÑT#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔóóCourts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€ArticleÐ °  Ð(CJP)€ðð4„402(a)€precludes€because€it€divests€the€District€Court€of€general€equity€jurisdiction;Ïthe€filing€in€small€claims€court€of€a€TCPA€suit€for€multiple€violations€and€statutory€damagesÏwhich€exceed€the€small€claims€jurisdictional€limit;€the€filing€of€a€TCPA€suit€in€a€county€inÏwhich€none€of€the€parties€reside€or€carry€on€a€course€of€business,€employment€or€vocationÏand€otherwise€fail€to€meet€the€venue€requirements€of€CJPÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹FU#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€ððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹wW#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¾W#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô6„201€and€202;€and€the€filingÐ 0€  Ðof€a€TCPA€suit€against€a€defendant€having€insufficient€contacts€with€Maryland€to€supportÏthe€exercise€of€personal€jurisdiction€under€Marylandððs€long„arm€statute,€CJPÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹X#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€ððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ Y#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€6„103.€€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹gY#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹iA#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÐ 0€ Ðà  àRejection€of€private€TCPA€suits€filed€in€state€courts€may€occur€only€via€neutral€rulesÏof€general€administrationÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹²Y#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó€such€as€those€just€described.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÊZ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€Private€TCPA€suits€for€fax€violationsÐ 0€ Ðcan€not€and€do€not€require€alteration€of€any€of€Marylandððs€ð ðlaws€or€rules€of€court.ðð€€òòSeeóóÐ ° ÐÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹-[#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔHowlett,€supra,€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹+\#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô496€U.S.€at€p.€373€(finding€state€court€jurisdiction€proper€and€noting€theÐ 0€ Ðð ðsignificanceðð€of€the€fact€ð ðððthat€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹€\#ÔòòóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔCongress€had€not€attempted€ððto€enlarge€or€regulate€theÐ °  Ðjurisdiction€of€state€courts€or€to€control€or€affect€their€modes€of€procedure.ðððð€(quotingÏÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹U]#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔMondouóó,òò€supra,€223€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹H^#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔU.S.€at€p.€56).€Ð °$ Ðà  àThe€phrase,€ð ðA€person€or€entity€may,€if€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rules€ofÏcourt€of€a€State,€bring€[an€action€under€the€TCPA]€in€an€appropriate€court€of€that€State€.€.€.ððÏ(47€U.S.C.€ðð227(b)(3))€simply€incorporates€existing€constitutional€jurisprudence€and€doesÐ 0$€* Ðnot€enlarge€or€constrict€the€neutral€rules€of€Maryland€court€administration.€Although€federalÏlaw€is€generally€enforceable€in€state€court,€it€takes€the€state€courts€ð ðas€it€finds€them.ððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¦^#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€TheÐ 0€ Ðlanguage€of€the€TCPA€requiring€that€claims€be€brought€in€ð ðan€appropriate€court€of€that€stateððÏÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹a#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôabides€by€òòóóthis€principle.€€€Sen.€Hollings,€the€TCPAððs€sponsor,€emphasized€the€point:€ð ðTheÐ 0 € Ðbill€does€not,€because€of€constitutional€constraints,€dictate€to€the€States€òòwhich€courtóó€in€eachÐ °  ÐState€shall€be€the€proper€venue€for€such€action,€as€this€is€a€matter€for€State€legislators€toÏdetermine.ðð€Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹ôY#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÓ€s:ÓÓ€Ó137€Cong.€Rec.€S.€16,205€(daily€ed.€Nov.€7,€1991)€(Sen.€Hollings)€(emphasisÐ °  Ðadded)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Âa#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.Ó€šcÓÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ec#ÔÔ#†X<XXX<5d#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÓ€ÓÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€Thus,€the€phrase€at€issue€merely€acknowledges€that€states€have€the€right€to€structureÐ 0€  Ðtheir€own€court€systems€and€that€state€courts€are€not€obligated€to€change€their€proceduralÏrules€to€accommodate€TCPA€claims.€òòSchulman€v.€Chase€Manhattan€Bankóó,€710€N.Y.S.2dÐ 0€  Ð368,€372€(N.Y.€App.€2000)Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹±d#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹âd#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.€€This€interpretation€avoids€the€constitutional€issues€discussedÐ ° Ðòòsupraóó,€and€courts€should€avoid€reaching€a€constitutional€question€if€a€non„constitutionalÐ 0€ Ðquestion€is€dispositive€of€the€issue.€€òòLorillard€v.€Ponsóó,€434€U.S.€575,€577€(1978).Ð ° ÐÓ€ÐdÓÓ€¿hÓÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹of#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôà  àA€state€court€must€entertain€a€claim€arising€under€federal€law€ð ðwhen€its€ordinaryÐ 0€ Ðjurisdiction€as€prescribed€by€local€laws€is€òòappropriate€to€the€occasionóó€and€is€invoked€inÐ ° Ðconformity€with€those€laws.ððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹±f#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôòò€Mondouóó,òò€supra,€óó223òò€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¡i#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔU.S.€at€pp.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ j#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó56„57€(eÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Zj#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóómphasis€added)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ªj#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.òòóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ýj#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ 0€ Ðð ðUnder€these€circumstances€theÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Fk#ÔÔ‡ŠŸ ‹‹Š@¹Ô€Ô#†Š@¹‹ ‹ŠŸ¾k#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔState€courts€are€not€free€to€refuse€enforcement€of€petitionersððÐ °  Ðclaim.ðð€òò€Testaóó,òò€supra,€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹l#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô330€U.S.€at€p.€394Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Àl#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.€€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹m#ÔòòòòóóóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôð ðThe€Federal€Constitution€prohibits€state€courtsÐ 0€" Ðof€general€jurisdiction€from€refusing€to€[entertain€federal€claims]€solely€because€the€suit€isÏbrought€under€a€federal€law.ððòò€€McKnett€v.€St.€Louis€&€Sun€Francisco€R.€Co.óó,€òòòòóóóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹em#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô292€U.S.€230,Ð 0!€& Ð233„234€(1934)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¯n#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.Ð °"( ÐÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹!o#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà  àThe€jurisdiction€of€Maryland€courts€is€ð ðappropriate€to€the€occasion,ðð€under€òòMondouóó,Ð 0$€* Ðòòsupraóó.€€The€courts€of€this€state€routinely€enforce€actions€for€civil€damages,€including€actionsÐ °%!, Ðfiled€under€federal€statutes,€some€of€which€provide€for€multiple€(double€or€treble)€damages.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹yo#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó€òòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹&q#ÔóóòòRobinson€v.€Bunchóó,€òòsupra.óó€€Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔMaryland€courts€thus€entertain€the€ð ðsame€type€of€claimððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹™q#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ °($0 Ðas€those€under€the€TCPA,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹r#ÔòòóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôand€there€exists€ð ðjurisdiction€adequate€and€appropriate€underÐ 0*€%2 Ðestablished€local€law€to€adjudicate€this€action.ðð€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Žr#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Id.;€see€Howlettóó,òò€supra,€óó496€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹]s#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔU.S.€at€373„Ð °+'4 Ð374.€€òòÐ ° Ðà  àóóòòTestaóó,€òòsupraóó,€refers€to€the€state€courtððs€prior€cases€of€ð ðthe€same€type€of€claim.ððÐ 0€ ÐòòClaflinóó,€òòsupraóó,€refers€to€a€court€ð ðcompetent€to€decide€rights€of€the€like€character€and€class,ððÐ ° Ðmeaning€that€ð ðadequate€and€appropriateðð€jurisdiction€exists€under€local€law.€€In€making€itsÏpoint,€the€òòTestaóó€court€selected€cases€showing€the€state€courtððs€prior€enforcement€of€claimsÐ °  Ðfor€ð ðdouble€damages,ðð€not€under€the€federal€Emergency€Price€Control€Act,€which€was€thereÏat€issue,€but€under€the€Fair€Labor€Standards€Act€(29€U.S.C.€ððÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Æs#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô201€et€seq.),€obviously€anotherÐ °  Ðòòfederalóó€statute,€noting€that€treble€damages€were€allowable€under€both€statutes.ò òòòóóÐ 0€  ÐÌÓ€hÓÓ‰:ÓÓÓÝ ‚%é; ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚%é;ÑwÝà0  àÔ2DíÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝThe€Tenth€Amendment€Poses€No€Problem€To€Congressional€CreationÐ 0€  ÐOf€A€Private€Right€Actionable€In€State€Court݃%é;Ñwüw݌Р` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Òv#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹Wh#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ôó óÓ¿wÓÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÓ€(iÓÌÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¡y#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÓ  Óà  àCongressional€direction€over€the€states€is€only€limited€by€federalism€and€the€TenthÐ ° ÐAmendment,€which€prohibit€Congress€from€interfering€with€the€structure€and€jurisdictionÏof€state€courts.€€Congress€can€require€the€states€to€hear€a€claim,€but€just€canððt€tell€the€statesÏwhich€court€a€claim€should€be€heard€in.€€In€other€words,€the€federal€law€must€take€the€stateÏcourt€system€ð ðas€it€finds€them.ðð€€òòHowlettóó,€496€U.S.€at€372.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹úy#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ ° Ðà  àThe€relevant€concern€under€the€Tenth€Amendment€is€preservation€of€the€integrity€ofÏthe€structure€of€state€courts.€€ð ðThe€States€.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹|#ÔÔ‡ŠŸ ‹‹Š@¹Ô.€.€Ô#†Š@¹‹ ‹ŠŸ}#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôhave€great€latitude€to€establish€the€structure€andÐ °" Ðjurisdiction€of€their€own€courts.ð ð€òò€Howlettóó,òò€supra,€óó496òò€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹J}#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔU.S.€at€372Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ ~#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô.€€Private€actions€enforcingÐ 0 €$ Ðthe€unsolicited€facsimile€provisions€of€the€TCPA€do€notòòóó€violate€any€neutral€laws€or€rules€ofÐ °!& Ðcourt€administration,€and€thus€the€integrity€of€the€state€courts€is€in€no€way€compromised€byÏthe€requirement€that€such€suits€be€entertained.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹m~#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Nothing€in€òòRobinson€v.€Bunchóó€suggests€thatÐ °$ * Ða€grant€of€exclusive€jurisdiction€to€the€state€courts,€rather€than€concurrent€jurisdiction€withÏfederal€courts,€would€in€any€way€diminish€the€duty€of€state€courts€to€hear€private€suits€toÏenforce€federal€statutes.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ä#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹iy#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔÐ 0)€$0 Ðà  àDicta€in€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹A#ÔòòòòóóInternational€Science€&€Technology€Institute,€Inc.€v.€InacomÐ °*&2 ÐCommunications,€Inc.óó,€106€F.3d€1146€(4th€Cir.,€1997)Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôòò€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹€‚#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôrefers€to€a€possible€Tenth€òòóóAmendmentÐ ° Ðviolation€if€Congress€had€required€state€courts€to€accept€private€suits€under€the€TCPAÏwithout€the€option€to€reject€them,€thereby€impermissibly€ð ðcommandeeringðð€those€courts,€andÏthat€this€risk€is€avoided€by€interpretingÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹É‚#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹ƒ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€the€language€ð ðif€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€andÐ 0 € Ðrules€of€court€of€a€stateðð€as€granting€states€the€option€to€reject€legislatively€the€private€causeÏof€action.€€òòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹+„#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔóóThe€courtòòóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹q…#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€suggested€that€a€grant€of€exclusive€rather€than€concurrent€jurisdictionÐ 0 €  Ðto€the€state€courts€ð ðcould€create€a€problem€potentially€left€unresolvedðð€by€existing€case€law.€òòÐ °  ÐInternational€ScienceÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Å…#ÔÔ#†X<X‹Š@¹m„#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<ÔóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô,€106€F.3d€at€1158.€€Ð 0€  Ðà  àHowever€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹;‡#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôthis€statement€and€reasoning€goes€too€far.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹»‡#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó€There€isòò€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹+ˆ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôin€fact€no€unresolvedÐ °  Ðconstitutional€problem.€€It€has€long€been€clear€that€giving€state€courts€exclusive€jurisdictionÏover€certain€federal€claims€is€not€just€permissible,€but€is€an€integral€part€of€the€nationalÏjudicial€fabric.€òò€Seeóó,òò€e.g.óó,€òòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹€ˆ#ÔòòóóPrintz€v.€United€Statesóó,€521€U.S.€898,€907€(1997);€Wright,€MillerÐ 0€ Ð&€Cooper,€òòóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô13€Federal€Practice€and€Procedure,€at€ðð3526.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹DŠ#ÔòòòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóó€International€Science€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¼Š#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôcites€noÐ ° Ðdecision€supporting€the€notion€of€a€potential€Tenth€Amendment€ð ðproblem.ðð€It€cites€only€oneÏdecision,€òòNew€York€v.€United€StatesóóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹‹#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€505€U.S.€144,€161€(1992)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Œ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô,€in€support€of€the€idea€thatÐ ° ÐCongress€may,€as€a€constitutional€matter,€be€required€to€take€account€of€the€workload€of€stateÏcourts€in€allocating€jurisdiction.€€106€F.3d€at€1157.€€€However,€òòNew€Yorkóó€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹_Œ#ÔòòòòóóóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôheld€that€CongressÐ °  Ðð ðmay€not€simply€ððcommandeer€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ž#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóóòòthe€Legislativeóóòò€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ž#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôprocesses€of€the€States.ðððð€505€U.S.€at€161Ð 0€" Ð(emphasis€added).€€The€Supreme€Court€stated€that€ð ðFederal€statutes€enforceable€instateÏcourts€do,€in€a€sense,€direct€state€judges€to€enforce€them,€but€this€sort€of€federal€ððdirectionððÏof€state€judges€is€mandated€by€the€text€of€the€Supremacy€Clause.ðð€€òòNew€Yorkóó,€505€U.S.€atÐ °"( Ð178„179.€€As€the€Supreme€Court€reconfirmed€after€òòÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹}Ž#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔóóòòInternational€Science,€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹o#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔfederalÐ 0$€* Ðð ðcommandeeringðð€of€statesðð€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ñ#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóóòòlegislativeóóòò€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹V‘#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôand€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹³‘#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôòòóóexecutiveòòóó€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ü‘#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôfunctions€may€raise€constitutionalÐ °%!, Ðconcerns;€but€congressional€reliance€on€the€jurisdiction€of€the€statesðð€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹W’#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóóòòjudiciaryóóòò€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹“#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôdoes€not:Ð 0'€". ÐÓ€ÀyÓÓzÓÓÓÌñ¼FñÌÌÌñ¼Fñà8  à[T]he€Constitution€was€originally€understood€to€permit€imposition€of€anÏobligation€on€state€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹y“#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôjudges€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Š”#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôto€enforce€federal€prescriptions,€insofar€as€thoseÐ °*&2 Ðprescriptions€related€to€matters€appropriate€for€the€judicial€power..€.€.€It€isÐ °+'3 Ðunderstandable€why€courts€should€have€been€viewed€distinctively€in€thisÏregard;€unlike€legislatures€and€executives,€they€applied€the€law€of€otherÏsovereigns€all€the€time.Ð Ð Ð  Ðà  àà ` àÌÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ö”#ÔÓÜ“ÓÓ€ÓòòÓ  ÓPrintzóó,Ô‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€521€U.S.€at€907€(1997)Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Þ–#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€(emphasis€in€original);€€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹7—#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔòòóóSee€alsoóó,€òòClaflinóó,òò€supra,€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹–—#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô93€U.S.€atÐ ° Ð138€(ð ðððThe€judiciary€power€of€every€government€looks€beyond€its€own€local€or€municipalÏlaws,€and,€in€civil€cases,€lays€hold€of€all€subjects€of€litigation€between€parties€within€itsÏjurisdiction,€though€the€causes€of€dispute€are€relative€to€the€laws€of€the€most€distant€part€ofÏthe€globe....ðððð)€(quoting€Hamilton,€The€Federalist,€No.€821.)€Ìòòà  àóóThe€discussion€in€€òòInternational€Scienceóó€goes€too€far€to€sidestep€the€TenthòòóóÐ 0€  ÐAmendment.€€''From€the€beginning€and€for€many€years€the€[Tenth]€Amendment€has€beenÏconstrued€as€not€depriving€the€national€government€of€authority€to€resort€to€all€means€for€theÏexercise€of€a€granted€power€which€are€appropriate€and€plainly€adapted€to€the€permitted€end.''€òòÐ ° ÐUnited€States€v.€Darbyóó,€312€U.S.€100,€124€€(1941).€€Private€suits€under€the€TCPA€are€theÐ 0€ Ðexercise€of€such€a€means€for€the€exercise€of€a€granted€power.€€It€calls€upon€the€judicialÏresources€of€the€states,€not€their€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹˜#ÔòòÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôóólegislative€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹^œ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôor€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¯œ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôexecutive€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ôœ#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôresources,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹@#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôand€therefore€does€notÐ 0€ Ðfall€within€the€ð ðcommandeeringðð€to€be€avoided€under€the€Tenth€Amendment.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ ° ÐÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Hž#ÔòòóóÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€à  àThe€TCPA€allocates€concurrent€jurisdiction€between€state€and€federal€courts.€€WhileÐ 0€ Ða€TCPA€ð ðprivate€right€of€actionðð€is€cognizable€in€state€courts€(47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3)),Ïð ðactions€by€Statesðð€brought€by€the€Attorney€General€or€a€designated€ð ðofficial€or€agencyððÏunder€the€TCPA€must€be€pursued€in€federal€court€(47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(f)(l)).€This€divisionÏhonors€the€historical€scheme€in€which€Congress€may€allocate€causes€of€action€between€stateÏand€federal€courts€as€it€deems€appropriate,€leaving€untouched€neutral€state€procedural€rulesÏthat€apply€equally€to€federal€and€state€actions.€€Congress€has€the€power€to€remove€or€provideÏjurisdiction€to€the€federal€courts,€and€there€is€nothing€in€the€Constitution€that€limits€thisÏpower€to€federal€laws€in€which€concurrent€state€and€federal€jurisdiction€is€granted.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹¥ž#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ 0(€#. ÐÌÓ€³–ÓÓÈ–Óò òÓÓà0  àà ° àB.€à  àEven€if€the€TCPA€were€read€to€allow€states€toÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹E¢#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€reject€the€TCPAððs€privateÐ 0+€&2 Ðòòcause€of€action€for€facsimile€violations,€Maryland€has€made€no€such€rejection.Ð ° Ðó óÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹,£#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔóóÐ (#(# ÐÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ ¤#ÔÓ£¢Óòòò òó óóóÓ€ÓÓ  Óñ¿Fññ½FñÌñ½Fññ¿FññÀFñÌñÀFñà0  àò ò1.à0` (#(#àMaryland€has€not€rejected€TCPA€jurisdiction€in€state€courts.Ð0€` (#` (# Ðó óñ¾FñÌñ¾Fñà  àIn€May€2001€the€CSA€recognized€that€ð ðThus€far,€Maryland€has€not€refused€toÐ °  Ðexercise€such€jurisdiction.€€Accordingly,€our€state€courts€are€faced€with€the€extraordinaryÏsituation€of€having€exclusive€jurisdiction€over€a€private€right€of€action€brought€under€federalÏlaw.ðð€òòWorshamóó,€138€Md.€App.€at€496Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹‡#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô.Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹Ë¦#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ô€€No€legislative€action€was€taken€from€2001€to€theÐ 0€  Ðtime€of€the€CSAððs€decision€in€òòPonte€óóin€January€2003,€in€which€the€CSA€stated€òòóóthat€MarylandÐ °  Ðhas€not€rejected€jurisdiction€over€private€TCPA€actions.€€òòPonteóó,€149€Md.€App.€at€232€(theÐ 0€  ÐGeneral€Assembly€ð ðhas€never€voiced€its€acceptance€or€rejection€of€jurisdiction€over€privateÏactions€under€the€Act.ðð).òòóó€€€Nonetheless€the€CSA€somehow€concluded€from€legislativeÐ 0€ Ðòòinactionóó€that€the€Maryland€legislature€demonstrated€an€ð ðintent€òònotóó€to€accept€the€grant€ofÐ ° Ðjurisdiction€over€private€actions€under€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3).ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€238€(emphasis€inÐ 0€ Ðoriginal).€€The€CSAððs€ultimate€conclusion€is€thus€confusing,€internally€contradictory,€andÏflawed.ÌÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôà  àThe€CSA€incorrectly€relied€on€unsupported€conjecture€and€inferenceòòóó,€based€onÐ ° Ðlegislative€silence€and€inaction,€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹‘ª#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ôand€concluded€that€the€General€Assembly€is€opposed€to€theÐ 0€  ÐTCPAððs€private€right€of€action€for€fax€violations€in€Maryland.€€However€there€is€simply€noÏindication€that€the€TCPA€was€ever€addressed€in€any€legislative€history,€much€less€that€itsÏprivate€cause€of€action€was€intentionally€rejected.€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹h«#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÐ °!& ÐÓ€‡¤ÓÓ€Óà  àThe€CSA€explicitly€avoided€embracing€any€of€the€positions€addressed€by€other€courtsÏthat€have€considered€the€phrase€ð ðif€otherwise€permitted,ðð€but€still€ended€up€in€the€same€campÏwith€òòAutoflex€Leasing,€Inc.€v.€Mfrs.€Auto€Leasing,€Inc.€óóÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹å¬#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô(Tex.€App.€2000)€16€S.W.3d€815,Ð 0&€!, Ð817).Ô#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹f®#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€Setting€the€highest€hurdle€possible,€òòAutoflexóó€òòóóstands€alone€among€reported€stateÐ °'#. Ðopinions€in€requiring€a€state€enabling€act€before€a€private€action€for€fax€violations€of€theÏTCPA€can€be€entertained€in€state€court.€€Importantly€though,€òòAutoflexóó€is€Ô#†X<X‹Š@¹§#ÔÔ‡Š@¹‹XX<Ônot€good€law,€evenÐ °*&2 Ðin€Texas,€but€understanding€why€requires€some€explanation.ÌÔ#†Š@¹‹‹Š@¹á®#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹ÔÔ#†+X<X‹+Š@¹A°#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹X+X<Ôà  àThe€full€citationÔ#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹å°#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€to€òòAutoflex€Leasing,€Inc.,€v.€Mfrs€Auto€Leasing,€Inc.óó,€16€S.W.3d€815Ð 0€ Ð(Tex.€App.€2000)€should€also€include€ð ð(pet.€denied)ðð€to€reflect€the€fact€that€in€that€case€aÏpetition€for€rehearing€was€denied.€€This€is€very€important,€because€unlike€most€states,€theÏsubsequent€history€for€appellate€decisions€in€Texas€denotes€a€great€deal€about€what€theÏTexas€Supreme€Court€thought€of€the€decision.Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹†±#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€Ô#†Š@¹‹‹+Š@¹k³#ÔÔ‡+Š@¹‹‹Š@¹Ô€€Under€the€Texas€appellate€rules€the€citationÐ 0 €  Ðto€a€petition€