ÿWPC3C · ´[?’Ì)óJ{ PÛ€-Y‡[$]È$©rˆÁÿ]pßù7aÛxÌe¥.º“ é‘fdÍ ¯Eˆ!Á¡ŠÙ b ^  wv+ 4¡ µ Ä mÆ MÝ U*á M M M M 1u 1‡ 0 c 1‡z M 0l 0Dq 0µ 0…É 0:N 0±ˆU.9 1‡g 1‡î 1‡u 1‡ü 1‡ƒ 0w  1‡ 1‡M 1‡“ 1‡URN¡bïMóM÷Mûbÿ 1‡bŠ BB’NÔ 1‡Ö 1‡] 1‡äBk 1‡­ M4!b8!M]1 0Ê›1›1 0´e2 0´3 0aÍ3 B.4 0´K4 0´ÿ4 0D³5 09÷5 0Ü06 02 7 0ü>7 0_:8 0 ™8 0k£9 0Ç; B*Õ< D3ÿ< C2= D+L= 0Çw= 0ç>? 06%@ 0[@ 1OcA 0:²A 0hìA 0FTBU6šBMÐBMÔBMØBMÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜBÜB ASàB˜HP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ô\  `&Times New Roman- ù-®“;/‰Ó\DÔ\DÕ\UÖ\D×\QØ\QÙ\Ú\DÛ\Ü\DÝ\UÞ\Vß\£à\ á\Dâ\dã\£ä\vå\D;€/¢Ø+003|xå\ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ%ä2¼A`Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à DíCEKQW]cioAutoList2II1.IIIIIIIIIIII((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;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à ú}CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A. Õ>CEKSY_ekqAutoList9I.(1)I.I.I.I.I.I. E¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList171.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(Õ£EGMSY_ekqAutoList10IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ù ù(U¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList181.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.- ù->Thick/Thin 2[ d -d(å£EGMSY_ekqAutoList11I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.(õ£EGMSY_ekqAutoList12IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ¢EGMSY_ekqAutoList13IIII1.IIIIIIIIII 8Ý ƒüÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€òòÔ‡Š ä‹XXÔSee€In€the€Matter€of€Fax.com,€Inc.,€Apparent€Liability€for€Forfeitureóó,€17€FCCÐ ° ÐRcd.€15927€(2002),€adopted€Aug.€2,€2002€(E84„102).€€€In€particular,€the€FCC€specificallyÏnoted€that€ð ðFax.com€appears€to€have€engaged€in€pattern€of€deception€and€intimidation€toÏconceal€its€involvement€in€sending€prohibited€faxes€and€to€frustrate€consumersðð€efforts€toÏexercise€the€statutory€private€right€of€action.€.€.€Through€Mr.€Martinððs€false€claim€to€beÏemployed€by€a€client,€Fax.com€subverts€the€judicial€decision„making€process€and€skewsÏthe€statutory€private€right€of€action€accorded€under€section€227€by€ensuring€that€the€courtÏdoes€not€have€an€accurate€record€upon€which€to€base€its€decision.ðð€€òòId.€óó€at€ðððð€20„21€(E95„Ð °  Ð96).€òòóó€The€FCC€described€Fax.com€letters€which€ð ðgo€beyond€valid€legal€defenses€andÐ °  Ðmisrepresent€the€requirements€of€section€227(b)(1)(C),€again€in€an€apparent€effort€toÏconvince€the€recipients€that€they€do€not€have€a€cause€of€actionðð€and€ð ðallude€to€retaliatoryÏand€possible€vexatious€court€actions€if€recipients€exercise€the€private€right€of€actionÏprovided€by€section€227(b)(3).ðð€€òòId.óó€at€ðððð€22„23.€€Fax.com€engaged€in€aggressive€defenseÐ °  Ðtactics€in€this€very€court,€moving€for€sanctions€against€Petitioners€simply€for€includingÏthe€above€òòreportedóó€FCC€Notice€in€the€Record€Extract.€Ô#†XEX‹Š äX#Ô€€òò€óó(¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList14IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ù(%¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList151.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(5¤EGMSY_ekqAutoList161.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.)l£  Z6Times New Roman Regular ù0ÿÿ.Normal(2L$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýöÿ  d<ÿÿ:Definition T  Cas MfrsBiggusLovemanCicoriaClaflinFelland DigiHelveringHallock S.E.reconsiddendCommunKilroyDirectTVMarzullo KahlMcKessonMcKnettMayfieldMondouPrintzEverngamAluisiSprietsmaColumrespondeat LTDMilleniumFaxcastingSubmittalEllicotB]usinesses W]ereturn[ingH.R.RepimpolicySt.LouisBombolis Vill RysCommnCarboneClarkstownHousemannLorillard H.B.DieblerS]inceSchlossbergCitbankCommrTheatreCalifanoYamasakiT]hisSubcommCitibank CBOReischauerConsumer.NetF.C.C.R.violativeprovid[ePalmoreConroyAniskoff OldeTowneAttridge P.L. USCS  Judicial  Limitation  $  NotwithstandingBehaviour   an  review €  The  Enforcement   Any  Nothingnonregulated  Withsubsecs€NONMAILABLE  Nonmailable  Definitions €  the  originates €  In   isnonmailable  shall  does  Requirements  Notice  includes  states  Notification  Election  Response   Effectiveness   has  elects  Private  both   It  Action  Promoternonliability  a  another  Prohibition  Lists  Civil   who   Act  Services  State  administer  provide  Programs  permits  Religious"nongovernmental(  Nondiscrimination  Additional  alter  remove €  in  Rights €  In  Individual  Employment  Fiscal  Limited  Compliance  Limitations  Preemption  This  MannixCohan   The   in' \qZ ‹>Old English Text MT Regular<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó(c8Z$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2¢ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à 0Ñ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ X ÑÑ X Ñ8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ d(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡o<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡o<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡o<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Bottom of ÓI€de4$À˜ ** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€fe*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô&ÿÿ0 d dcccc'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd÷ÿdÿÿÿd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓI€de4$À˜** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€fe*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡o<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡o<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ“ 379;=?ACEÐÐ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(Courier NewZMùÿ -°, dcÿÿÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÙÙÑÀ°Ñòòò òÔ‡Š€½‹XXÔÑ€ÑÑ8€<XXdìdÈ8Ññß\ñÓ  Óñß\ññà\ñóóó óÔ‡?Š€½‹‹Š€½ÔÔ#†?X<X‹?Š€½M#Ôñà\ññâ\ñÑ  Ññâ\ññà\ñÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓIn€TheÌÌò òÔ#†X<XX?X<Ô#ÔÔ‡FX•´XXX<ÔÔ‡F°“Ú°XFX•´ÔCourt€of€Appeals€of€MarylandÔ#†°£.°°F°“Úv#ÔÔ‡?°£.°°°£.Ôó óÔ#†?X<X°?°£.•#ÔÐ $ t ÐÓ<ÓÌÌßA€CJ) °°Œ d E¦Õ Œ AßÐ Ö&  ÐÓ  ÓNo.€21ÌSeptember€Term€2003ÌÓµÓßA€CJ) °°Œ d E¦Ì Œ AßÐ Í  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÌÔ‡? bŽ !X?X<ÔBRUCE€LEVITTÔ#†?X<X !? bŽQ#ÔÐ ° ÐÓDÓÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àòòPetitioneróóÐ Ø( ÐÓ  Óvs.ÌÌÌÓVÓÔ#†X<XX?X<ó#ÔÔ‡+X<XXX<Ôò òÓ  ÓÔ‡+ bŽ !X+X<Ôó óFAX.COM,€INC.,Ô#† bŽ ! !+ bŽ›#ÔÔ‡+ bŽ ! ! bŽÔ€et€al.ò òÔ#†+X<X !+ bŽÉ#Ôó óÔ#†X<XX+X<#ÔÔ‡?X<XXX<ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÓ½ÓÓÓÌÓÒÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àòòRespondentsóó,Ð ° ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÔ‡?ôÌß õX?X<ÔòòOn€a€Writ€of€Certiorari€to€the€Court€Ô_Ôñà\ññå\ññà\ñCñà\ññå\ññà\ññà\ññå\ññà\ñoñà\ññå\ññà\ññà\ññå\ññà\ñurtñà\ññå\ññà\ñÔ_ÔÔ_Ôñà\ññå\ññà\ñ€ñà\ññå\ññà\ñofÔ_Ô€Special€Appeals€of€Maryland€Ð tÄ ÐóóÔ#†?X<X õ?ôÌß”#ÔÓˆÓÌßA€cJ) °°xddE°% 0xAßÐ & v ÐÓÓò òÔ‡? bŽ !X?X<ÔÌREPLY€BRIEF€FOR€PETITIONERÌÌÔ#†?X<X !? bŽm#Ôó óÓZÓßA€cJ) °°xddE°$0xAßà  àÐ  $Y" ÐÌÌÔ#†X<XX?X<Ž#ÔÔ‡+X<XXX<ÔMichael€C.€Worsham,€Esq.à  àà0 h àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àà0p(#(#àStephen€H.€Ring,€P.C.Ô#†X<XX+Xàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†XEX‹Š ä´G#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ16Ô#†XEX‹Š ä5H#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԈРœ$ì  ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š äyH#ÔòòÌTesta€v.€Kattóó,€330€U.S.€386€(1947)Ô‡Š ä‹XXEÔà‚`"`"I(#.tt,àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†XEX‹Š äúH#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$à14ˆÐ ˆ&Ø!" ÐÌòòUnited€States€v.€Bassóó,€404€U.S.€336€(1971)Ô‡Š ä‹XXEÔà‚`"`"I(#.4àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àÔ#†XEX‹Š ä\J#Ôà0 @À àà0@Àê$Àê$àà0@pê$ê$àà0@Èpê$pê$àà0@ Èê$Èê$àà0@x ê$ ê$àà0@Ð xê$xê$à15ˆÐ `(°#$ ÐÌÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔÓ€ÓòòóóòòWill€v.€Michiganóó,€491€U.S.€58€(1989)à‚L"L"I(#.``.àà0@Ð xê$xê$à15ˆÐ 8*ˆ%& ÐòòÓ  Óò òÐ ¸+'( ÐSTATUTESà0 @` àó óóóÐ ° ÐÓ%LÓòòóó15€U.S.C.€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔððÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä˜L#ÔÔ#†XEX‹Š äzK#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ€3207(b)à‚""H(#.ž ž à€19Ô#†XEX‹Š äM#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԈР0€ Ð28€U.S.C.€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔððÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä¨M#ÔÔ#†XEX‹Š äiM#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ€1332€(diversity€statute)à‚""H(#.ÄÄ.à€13Ô#†XEX‹Š äN#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԈР° Ð39€U.S.C.€ðð€3017(e)€à‚""H(#.Æ Æ à€13Ô#†XEX‹Š äŠN#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԈР0 € ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š äO#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ42€U.S.C.€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔððÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä˜O#ÔÔ#†XEX‹Š äoO#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ€604a(i)à‚""H(#.^ ^ à€19Ô#†XEX‹Š äP#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԈР°  ÐTelephone€Consumer€Protection€Act:Ìà  à47€U.S.C.€ðð€227à‚ª!ª!F(#.Š Š à€1,€6ˆÐ °  ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š äiP#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔà  à47€U.S.C.€ðð€227Ô#†XEX‹Š ä8Q#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ(b)(3)à‚˜ ˜ C(#.††$àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# à2,€5,€12ˆÐ 0€  Ðà  à47€U.S.C.€ðð€227Ô#†XEX‹Š ä˜Q#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ(c)(5)à‚L"L"I(#.xx$à12Ô#†XEX‹Š ä[R#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԈР°  Ðà  àÔ#†XEX‹Š äÀR#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(f)Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äCS#Ôà‚Î Î D(#.d d !à€12,€13Ô#†XEX‹Š ä$S#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԈР0€  ÐØØÓL€ #…h((5LÓAnnotated€Code€of€Maryland:Ìà  àCommercial€Law€Article€ðð14„1313à‚L"L"I(#.þþ.àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àòòà‚@$$Lê$.JJTàà @x àà @Ð àóóà0 @(# à21ˆÐ 0€ Ðà  àCourts€&€Judicial€Proceedings€Article,€€ðð€4„401à‚º"º"J(#.<<>àòòóó5ˆÐ ° ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š äßS#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔà  àCourts€&€Judicial€Proceedings€Article,€€ðð€4„402(a)à‚º"º"J(#.,,Aàà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àòòà‚@$$Lê$.JJTàóó5ˆÐ 0€ ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š äþU#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔà  àCourts€&€Judicial€Proceedings€Article,€€ðð€4„404à‚º"º"J(#.<<>àà @x àà @Ð àà0 @(# àòòà‚@$$Lê$.JJTàóó5ˆÐ ° ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š äøV#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔà  àPublic€Utility€Companies€Article,€ðð€8„204€à‚ (#LÓò òÓ€ÓÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔIII.€à0  àòòARGUMENTЩù(#(# Ðóóó óÌÓ€¡{ÓÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔòòÓ  ÓÔ#†XEX‹Š ä³{#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔÓ€Óà  àóóPetitioners€responds€to€the€arguments€of€Respondents€Fax.com,€Inc.€and€JD&TÐ OŸ ÐEnterprises,€Inc.€d/b/a€Travel€To€Go,€as€well€as€the€arguments€made€by€the€Respondents€inÏthe€companion€cases€and€those€of€amicus€curiae.òòÐ OŸ Ðò òóóA.€à0  àRespondents€Fail€To€Address€All€Of€The€TCPAððs€Statutory€Language.Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä*|#Ôó óÐ"r (#(# ÐÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔà  àThe€various€arguments€of€Respondents€and€amici€fail€to€adequately€consider€orÐ õ E" Ðaddress€all€of€the€relevant€statutory€language.€€Through€both€omission€and€taking€theÏlanguage€out€of€context,€Respondents€attempt€to€impart€a€meaning€not€intended€by€Congress.€ÏThe€Court€must€consider€the€entire€relevant€statutory€language€in€the€TCPA€which€grantsÏMaryland€citizens€a€private€right€of€action€in€state€court€for€unsolicited€commercial€faxes€(asÏwell€as€certain€prerecorded€voice€solicitations).€€The€relevant€statutory€language€is:Ô#†XEX‹Š ä{|#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔÓ€š|ÓÐ u(Å#, ÐÓL|ÓÌÐ +k&. Ðà0  àA€person€or€entity€may,€if€ò òotherwiseó ó€permitted€by€the€laws€ò òor€rulesó ó€ò òof€courtó ó€of€aÐ ° ÐState,€bring€in€an€ò òappropriateó ó€court€of€that€State€„д(#(# Ðà  àà0 ` à(A)€an€action€based€on€a€violation€of€his€subsection€or€the€regulationsÏprescribed€under€this€subsection€to€enjoin€such€violation,Ð ` (#` (# Ðà  àà0 ` à(B)€an€action€to€recover€for€actual€monetary€loss€from€such€a€violation,€orÏto€receive€$500€in€damages€for€each€such€violation,€whichever€is€greater,€orÐ ` (#` (# Ðà0  àà ` à(C)€both€such€actions.Ð (#(# Ðò òòòÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äZ~#Ôó óóóÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÔ#†XEX‹Š äÊ€#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3)€(emphasis€added).Ð  T Ðà  àDespite€several€Briefs€by€Respondents€and€amici,€four€key€aspects€of€this€statutoryÏlanguage€were€not€specifically€or€adequately€addressed:€(1)€the€word€ò òotherwiseó ó;€(2)€theÐ W§  Ðwords€ò òor€rules€or€courtó ó;€(3)€the€word€ò òappropriateó ó;€and€(4)€subsections€(A)€and€(C)€of€47Ð Ý-  ÐU.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3),€both€of€which€provide€for€injunctive€relief€to€private€citizens.ÌÌÓ€„Óò òà0  à(1)€Respondents€fail€to€give€meaning€to€the€words€ð ðotherwiseðð€andÐ  Y Ðð ðappropriateðð€in€the€TCPAððs€enabling€language.ó óÐ Y(#(# ÐÌÓ€åŠÓà  àRespondents€and€amici€have€cited€the€ð ðif€otherwise€permittedðð€language€repeatedly,Ïbut€have€rendered€the€word€ððotherwiseðð€as€meaningless€surplusage,€in€violation€of€the€rulesÏof€statutory€interpretation.€€òòGeico€v.€Insurance€Commððróó,€332€Md.€124,€132€(1993).€€CongressÐ ¯ÿ Ðdid€not€draft€the€TCPA€to€say€a€person€may€bring€a€private€action€ð ðif€expressly€permittedððÏby€the€state€legislature,€which€is€how€Respondents€are€reading€the€language.€€Congress€didÏnot€even€write€the€TCPA€to€read€that€a€private€action€may€be€brought€ð ðif€permittedðð€by€theÏstate€legislature.Ìà  àWhat€Congress€actually€wrote€is€that€private€actions€may€be€brought€ð ðif€ò òotherwiseó óÐ ‚%Ò $ Ðpermitted€by€the€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔlaws€or€rules€of€court€of€a€State.ðð€€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä3Š#ÔThis€word€ð ðotherwiseðð€must€be€givenÐ 'X"& Ðsome€meaning,€in€light€of€the€rest€of€the€language€and€Congressional€intent.€€RespondentsÏFax.com€and€JD&T€provided€a€definition€of€ð ðotherwiseðð€from€the€American€HeritageÏDictionary€(Resp.€Brf.€at€15).€€Petitioners€definition€is€in€agreement:€(1)€in€a€different€wayÐ ˆ+Ø&, Ðor€manner;€(2)€in€different€circumstances;€(3)€in€other€respects.€€Websterððs€Ninth€NewÏCollegiate€Dictionary€(1983)€at€835.€€The€word€ððotherwiseðð€is€used€as€an€adverb€in€theÏTCPA,€but€the€definition€of€ððotherwiseðð€when€used€as€a€pronoun€is€also€useful:€ððsomethingÏor€anything€else€:€something€to€the€contrary.€€òòId.óó€at€836.€€Ð 0 € Ðà  àThese€definitions€clearly€do€not€have€the€meaning€of€ð ðexpressðð€or€ð ðexpresslyðð€asÏRespondent€would€like€them€to€have,€so€that€the€TCPA€would€be€read€to€allow€privateÏactions€only€ð ðif€expressly€permittedðð€by€the€state.€€What€the€word€ððotherwiseðð€as€used€in€theÏTCPA€actually€means€is€that€absent€some€other/different€law€or€rule€of€state€court,€a€personÏmay€bring€an€action€in€an€appropriate€court€of€the€state.€€The€other/different€law€or€rule€mustÏbe€a€neutral€rule€applicable€to€all€cases.Ìà  àThe€word€ððotherwiseðð€and€the€ð ðif€otherwise€permittedðð€language€was€needed€because,Ïalthough€the€Supremacy€Clause€empowers€Congress€to€create€federal€causes€of€action€andÏrequire€them€to€be€heard€in€state€court,€Congress€can€not€dictate€to€the€state€courts€how€toÏrun€their€courts€or€where€in€the€state€court€system€actions€must€be€allowed.€€SenatorÏHollings,€the€TCPAððs€sponsor,€specifically€pointed€this€fact€out€in€language€cited€inÏPetitionersðð€Brief:€ð ðThe€bill€does€not,€because€of€constitutional€constraints,€dictate€to€theÏStates€òòwhich€courtóó€in€each€State€shall€be€the€proper€venue€for€such€action,€as€this€is€a€matterÐ V¦  Ðfor€State€legislators€to€determine.ðð€€137€Cong.€Rec.€S.€16,205€(daily€ed.€Nov.€1991)€(Sen.ÏHollings)€(emphasis€added).€€The€word€ò òappropriateó ó€in€the€TCPAððs€language€emphasizesÐ V ¦$ Ðthe€actual€meaning€of€the€statutory€language.€€Congress€was€doing€the€best€it€could€to€steerÏTCPA€actions€to€an€appropriate€state€court€forum€without€dictating€to€the€states€how€to€runÏtheir€court€system.€€€€Ìò òà  à(2)€€€€€Respondents€fail€to€give€meaning€to€the€words€ð ðor€rules€of€court.ððó óÐ ¯&ÿ!, Ðà  àA€second€key€part€of€the€statutory€language€not€addressed€at€all€by€Respondents€orÏamici€is€the€words€ð ðò òor€rules€or€courtó óðð€in€the€private€right€of€action€enabling€language.€€IfÐ *R%0 ÐRespondentsðð€reading€of€the€language€was€correct,€the€Maryland€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÐ ˆ+Ø&2 Ðcould€enable€or€disable€the€right€of€Maryland€citizens€to€file€private€suits.€€This€is€completelyÏcontrary€to€the€uses€and€intent€of€the€rules€of€court€of€Maryland€or€any€other€state,€which€areÏgeneral€provisions€created€to€address€the€broad€array€of€cases€which€the€state€courts€mustÏadminister,€and€not€written€or€created€for€specific€types€of€cases.€Ô#†XEX‹Š äD„#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔRespondents€positionÐ 0 € Ðwould€violate€the€prohibition€on€reading€a€statute€ð ðin€a€way€that€is€inconsistent€with,€orÏignores,€common€sense€or€logic.ðð€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€òòFrost€v.€Stateóó,€336€Md.€125,€137€(1994).Ô#†XEX‹Š ä—#ÔÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXBÓÔ#†XEXXXEÛ—#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԀР0 €  Ðà  àThe€disjunctive€word€ððorðð€precedes€the€words€ððrules€of€court.ðð€€Thus,€even€if€theÏTCPA€was€interpreted€to€somehow€allow€a€state€legislature€to€choose€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€theÏprivate€right€of€action€for€its€citizens€by€passing€a€law,€if€the€rules€of€court€otherwise€allowÏit,€such€private€suits€are€allowed€in€state€court.€€This€Court€can€take€judicial€notice€of€the€factÏthat€there€are€of€course€no€such€Maryland€rules€specifically€addressing€the€TCPA€privateÏright€of€action€one€way€or€another€or€limiting€this€private€right.€€It€is€extremely€far„fetchedÏto€believe€that€Congress€intended€entities€such€as€the€Standing€Committee€On€Rules€OfÏPractice€And€Procedure€of€this€Court€of€Appeals€to€be€the€gate„keeper€for€citizens€who€wantÏto€redress€violations€of€a€federal€consumer€protection€law.€€More€importantly€andÏdeterminative€here,€there€is€no€clear€statement€that€this€was€Congressððs€intent,€just€as€thereÏis€no€clear€statement€either€that€Congress€intended€to€allow€state€legislatures€to€ð ðopt€out.ððÌà  àThe€Maryland€Rules€òòdoóó€limit€how€and€where€TCPA€cases€may€be€brought,€but€in€aÐ Ö&" Ðneutral€and€even„handed€fashion.€€For€example,€the€instant€class€action€could€not€have€beenÏbrought€in€small€claims€court,€and€in€that€sense€the€Rules€could€be€seen€as€denying€orÏlimiting€a€TCPA€claim.€€However,€that€limit€is€due€to€a€neutral€rule€(or€law)€which€appliesÏto€òòallóó€Maryland€class€actions,€not€just€TCPA€class€actions.€€The€Maryland€Rules€(or€laws)Ð Ö$& * Ðdo€not€bar€TCPA€class€actions€per€se,€but€only€direct€litigants€as€to€where€such€suits€mustÏbe€filed.ÌÌÐ |+Ì&2 ÐÓ€!‡Óò òà0  à(3)€€Respondents€failed€to€give€meaning€to€Congressðð€provision€for€TCPAÐ ° Ðinjunctive€relief€to€be€available€to€private€citizens.Ð (#(# Ðó óÓ€åŠÓà  àThe€third€key€omission€in€Respondentsðð€Brief€is€the€failure€to€address€CongressððÐ S Ðcreation€of€a€private€right€of€action€for€injunctive€relief€in€subsections€(A)€and€(C)€of€theÏprivate€right€of€action€enabling€language.€€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3)(A)€and€(C).€€InjunctiveÏrelief€is€not€ordinarily€granted€in€small€claims€courts.€€This€is€certainly€true€in€Maryland.€ÏMaryland€Annotated€Code,€Courts€&€Judicial€Proceedings€article,€€ðð4„402(a)€(ð ðExcept€asÏprovided€in€ðððð€4„401€and€4„404€of€this€subtitle,€the€District€Court€does€not€have€equityÏjurisdictionðð)€(Ô#†XEX‹Š ä±˜#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔno€provisions€in€ðð€401€or€404€allow€TCPA€injunctive€relief€in€District€Court)Ô#†XEX‹Š äÖ¢#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ.€Ð S  ÐCongress€recognized€that€telemarketing€and€unsolicited€commercial€faxing€were€soÏwidespread€that€in€certain€cases,€injunctive€relief€may€be€necessary,€and€provided€privateÏcitizens€this€form€of€relief.€€Ìà  àRespondents€and€amici€argue€as€if€Congress€òòóóintended€for€TCPA€cases€to€be€broughtÐ V¦ Ðòòonlyóó€in€a€small€claims€court.€€Congressðð€specific€creation€of€a€form€of€relief€„€injunctive€reliefÐ Ö& Є€not€generally€obtainable€in€small€claims€court,€clearly€refutes€this€argument.€Ô#†XEX‹Š äh£#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ€Again,Ð V¦ ÐCongress€could€not€instruct€state€courts€exactly€which€court€or€how€to€provide€for€relief,€butÏexpected€that€state€court€systems€would€make€it€easy€for€citizens€to€obtain€the€necessaryÏrelief,€whether€it€be€damages€or€injunctions.€€Congressðð€concern€was€vindication€of€statutoryÏrights,€and€making€it€as€easy€as€possible€for€citizens€to€obtain€relief,€and€doing€so€withoutÏtreading€on€the€statesðð€right€to€run€their€court€systems.€€€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔCongress€recognized€that€federal€lawÐ Ö &$ Ðmust€take€state€court€systems€ð ðas€it€finds€them.ðð€€òòHowlett€v.€Roseóó,€496€U.S.€356,€372€(1990).Ð V"¦& ÐÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š äǧ#ÔÓ€= Óò òà  à(4)€The€TCPA€Allows€Class€Actions,€Which€Are€Not€Heard€In€Small€ClaimsÐ )$y( Ðà  à€€€€€€Courts.Ìó óÓ€»€Óà  àWhat€is€not€present€in€the€TCPAððs€private€right€enabling€language€is€also€instructiveÐ Ï&"* Ðto€its€overall€interpretation.€€Congress€also€did€not€specifically€preclude€private€class€actions,Ïwhich€like€injunctive€relief,€is€not€obtained€in€a€small€claims€court.€€Nothing€in€47€U.S.C.Ïðð€227(b)(3)€or€elsewhere€in€the€TCPA€precludes€a€class€action.€€A€consequence€of€this€is€theÐ O+Ÿ&0 Ðcreation€of€a€presumption€in€favor€of€allowing€TCPA€class€actions.€òòESI€ErgonomicÐ ° ÐSolutions,€LLC€v.€United€Artists€Theatre€Circuit,€Inc.óó,€50€P.3d€844,€925€(2002),€Ô‡?Š ä‹‹Š äÔÔ#†?XEX‹?Š äÕ¥#ÔÔ‡?Š ä‹X?XEÔ2002€Ariz.Ð 0€ ÐApp.€LEXIS€109Ô#†?XEX‹?Š ä¬#ÔÔ#†XEXX?XEÜ«#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ€at€19„20€(TCPA€class€action€allowed€because€ð ðHaving€provided€for€aÐ ° Ðprivate€right€of€action€and€having€decided€the€appropriate€penalty,€Congress€did€not€precludeÏthe€use€of€class€actions€to€obtain€redress€for€violations€.€.€.€Class€action€relief€is€unavailableÏonly€if€Congress€expressly€excludes€it€.€.€.€and€Congress€has€done€so€in€some€statutesÔ#†XEX‹Š ä°¬#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ€.€.€.€Ô‡?Š ä‹‹Š äÔÐ 0 €  ÐCongress€provided€no€express€exclusion€of€class€action€relief€in€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227.ððÔ#†Š ä‹‹?Š äŠ®#Ô);Ð °  ÐòòCalifano€v.€Yamasakióó,€442€U.S.€682,€700€(1979)€(class€actions€under€a€remedial€statuteÐ 0€  Ðpresumed€unlesÔ#†XEX‹Š äd®#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔs€expressly€prohibited,€without€the€need€for€any€language€in€the€statuteÐ °  Ðexpressly€authorizing€a€class€action)Ô#†XEX‹Š äò¯#Ô.Ô‡Š ä‹XXEÔÐ 0€  Ðà  àClass€actions€are€wholly€consistent€with€both€Congressððs€intent€to€allow€citizens€toÏeffectuate€the€statuteððs€protections€via€private€action,€and€with€Sen.€Hollingsðð€statements€toÏmake€relief€as€easy€as€possible€for€citizens€to€obtain.€Clearly€it€is€easier€for€a€private€citizenÏto€obtain€relief€against€entrenched€violators€such€as€Fax.com€who€engage€in€scorched„earthÏlitigation€defenses,׃8×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€well„represented€national€corporations€such€as€amicus€DirecTV,€byÐ S Ðallowing€citizens€to€pool€claims€and€resources€together€in€class€actions€to€stop€the€violations.Ð ƒÓ Ðò òÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔB.€à0  àThe€TCPA€private€right€of€action€was€created€by€Congress€to€address€lack€ofÐ ° Ðgovernment€enforcementó óÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š ä¬³#Ô.Ð0€(#(# ÐÓ€]©ÓÓ€Óà  àThe€TCPAððs€private€right€of€action€was€created€at€the€request€of€Sen.€Hollings,€theÏbillððs€sponsor,€because€government€enforcement€alone€would€be€inadequate.€€Sen.€HollingsÏwas€reacting€to€the€FCCððs€inaction€and€failure€to€appreciate€or€even€recognize€the€magnitudeÏof€the€problem,€and€presumably€to€other€evidence€presented€to€Congress€regarding€problemsÏwith€state€enforcement.€ÌÓ€¬´ÓÓ€Óà  àFortunately,€this€portion€of€the€TCPAððs€legislative€history€is€preserved.€€The€FCCÏposition€is€documented€in€the€TCPAððs€Senate€Report:€ð ðÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔThe€FCC,€however,€has€decided€notÐ \¬  Ðto€take€any€action€to€regulate€unsolicited€calls.€After€examining€this€issue€in€1980€and€1986,Ïthe€FCC€concluded€that€it€did€not€need€to€take€any€action.ðð€€S.€Rep.€102„178€(Oct.€9,€1991)ÏÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š ä·#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ1991€U.S.C.C.A.N.€1968€(1991)€ÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°XBÓÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äK¸#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ(citing€Unsolicited€Telephone€Calls,€77€FCC€2d€1023Ð Ü, Ð(1980);€Automatic€Dialing€Devices,€FCC€Release€No.€86„352€(1986)).Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äí¸#Ô€€The€same€SenateÐ \¬ ÐReport€noted€that€in€the€FCC€statement€submitted€to€the€Communications€Subcommittee€forÏthe€record€of€the€hearing€on€the€bill,€then„FCC€Chairman€Alfred€C.€Sikes€stated:€"It€is€notÏclear,€however,€that€sweeping€Federal€legislation€is€required.€***€[T]his€may€be€a€situationÏwhere€continued€regulatory€scrutiny€and€monitoring,€subject€to€congressional€review€andÏoversight,€is€preferable€to€passage€of€legislation."€òòId.óó€(Statement€of€Alfred€C.€Sikes,Ð Ü," ÐChairman,€FCC,€Hearings€before€the€òòÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔSubcomm.€On€Communications€of€the€Senate€Comm.Ð \ ¬$ ÐOn€Commerce,€Sci.€and€Transp.óó,Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äà»#Ô€on€S.1462,òòÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔóó€òòThe€Automated€Telephone€ConsumerÐ Ü!,& ÐProtection€Act€of€1991óó;€S.€1410,€òòThe€Telephone€Advertising€Consumer€Protection€Actóó;€andÐ \#¬( ÐS.€857,€òòEqual€Billing€for€Long€Distance€Charges,óó102d€Cong.,€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Р䔼#ÔJuly€24,€1991,€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ(ð ðJuly€1991Ð Ü$, * ÐTCPA€hearingsðð)€at€54.Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äؽ#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äV¾#ÔÐ \&¬!, Ðà  àSen.€Hollings,€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔChair€at€the€time€of€the€Committee€on€Commerce,€Science,€andÐ /(#. ÐTransportation,Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äʾ#Ô€saw€this€FCC€response,€and€specifically€commented€on€itÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ:Ð ¯)ÿ$0 ÐÐ ‚+Ò&2 ÐÓ€f¶Óà0  àSeveral€parties,€including€the€Federal€Communications€Commission€(FCC)€itself,Ïraised€concerns€that€the€FCC€might€not€have€the€resources€to€pursue€violators€of€thisÏbill.€€The€will€of€the€FCC€to€enforce€the€bill€rigorously€was€also€questioned,Ïespecially€since€the€chairman€of€the€FCC€submitted€testimony€at€the€July€hearing€toÏindicate€that€he€believed€the€bill€was€unnecessary.Ð (#(# ÐÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä¤¿#ÔÓ€W½Ó137€Cong.€Rec.€S.30821„22€(1991)€(statement€of€Sen.€Hollings).€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔÐ  S Ðà  àSen.€Hollings€knew€that€the€way€to€address€the€FCCððs€lack€of€interest€and/orÏresources€in€enforcing€the€TCPA€was€to€provide€for€citizen€enforcement€through€a€privateÏattorney€general€statute.€€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äÂ#ÔHis€is€the€only€substantive€discussion€of€the€intent€of€the€TCPAÐ Ö&  Ðprivate€right€of€action€language,€and€is€repeated€here€in€its€entirety:Ô#†XEX‹Š ä·°#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔÐ V¦  ÐÓ€ÅÁÓà0  àà ` àMr.€President,€the€substitute€bill€I€am€offering€today€contains€a€number€ofÏsmall€changes€to€the€bill€that€was€reported€by€the€Commerce€Committee.€€TheseÏchanges€address€concerns€that€were€raised€at€the€hearing€in€Washington€and€hearingsÏin€South€Carolina,€and€in€the€additional€comments€that€were€received€from€the€public.Ð (#(# Ðà0  àà ` àThe€substitute€bill€contains€a€private€right„of„action€provision€that€will€makeÏit€easier€for€consumers€to€recover€damages€from€receiving€these€computerized€calls.€ÏThe€provision€would€allow€consumers€to€bring€an€action€in€State€court€against€anyÏentity€that€violates€the€bill.€€The€bill€does€not,€because€of€constitutional€constraints,Ïdictate€to€the€States€which€court€in€each€State€shall€be€the€òòò òproper€venue€for€such€anÐ |Ì Ðactionó óóó,€as€this€is€a€matter€for€State€legislatures€to€determine.€€Nevertheless,€it€is€myÐ €Ð Ðhope€that€States€will€make€it€easy€as€possible€for€consumers€to€bring€such€actions,Ïpreferably€in€small€claims€court.€€The€consumer€outrage€at€receiving€these€calls€isÏclear.€€Unless€Congress€makes€it€easier€for€consumers€to€obtain€damages€from€thoseÏwho€violate€this€bill,€these€abuses€will€undoubtedly€continue.Ð (#(# Ðà0  àà ` à€Small€claims€court€or€a€similar€court€would€allow€the€consumer€to€appearÏbefore€the€court€without€an€attorney.€€The€amount€of€damages€in€this€legislation€is€setÏto€be€fair€to€both€the€consumer€and€the€telemarketer.€€However,€it€would€defeat€theÏpurposes€of€the€bill€if€the€attorneysðð€costs€to€consumers€of€bringing€an€action€wereÏgreater€than€the€potential€damages.€€I€thus€expect€that€the€States€will€act€reasonablyÏin€permitting€their€citizens€to€go€to€court€to€enforce€this€bill.Ð (#(# ÐÓ€ÓÔ#†XEX‹Š äÄ#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ137€Cong.€Rec.€S.30821„22€(1991)€(statement€of€Sen.€Hollings)€(emphasis€added)€(theÐ *'z"# Ðsubstitute€bill€referred€to€by€Sen.€Hollings€was€S.€1462.€€The€private€enforcement€provisionsÏwere€also€added€to€S.1410€the€same€day.€€òòId.óó€at€30911,€Sen.€Pressler€Amendment€#1310).Ð **z%' ÐNotably,€in€the€above€passage€Sen.€Hollings€refers€to€states€deciding€the€ð ðproper€òòò òvenueó óóó€forÐ ª+ú&) Ðsuch€an€actionðð€and€the€constitutional€constraints€on€Congress€dictating€this€venue.€VenueÏis€an€entirely€different€concept€from€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€Sen.€Hollings€was€clearlyÏreferring€to€òòwhereóó€the€private€TCPA€would€be€heard,€not€òòwhetheróó€they€would€be€heard€inÐ ° Ðstate€court.€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä·Î#ÔHe€was€referring€to€neutral€rules€of€court€administration.Ð 0 € Ðà  àAlso€included€among€the€other€relevant€testimony€that€Congress€heard€on€the€variousÏbills€that€lead€to€the€TCPA€was€testimony€from€Marylandððs€Office€of€Peopleððs€Counsel:Ô#†XEX‹Š ä¢Ë#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔÐ ƒ Ó  ÐÓ€mËÓÔ‡?Š ä‹‹Š äÔÔ#†?XEX‹?Š ä'Ð#Ôà0  àÔ‡?Š ä‹X?XEÔMaryland,€as€I€indicated,€has€passed€a€law.€One€of€the€unfortunate€aspects€of€this€lawÐ V¦  Ðis€it€has€been€delegated€to€the€Maryland€Public€Service€commission,€which€does€notÏhave€enforcement€powers.€Efforts€to€delegate€that€authority€to€the€Attorney€GeneralÏhave€been€thwarted€over€the€past€several€years.€So€far€in€Maryland,€cases€of€extremeÏfraud€have€been€prosecuted€in€the€State€of€Maryland.€But€the€simple€use€of€theseÏabuses,€these€automatic€dialers,€have€not€thus€far€been€prosecuted€on€the€generalÏbasisÔ#†?XEX‹?Š ä¿Ð#Ô.€Ô#†XEXX?XEqÐ#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔÐV¦(#(# ÐÔ‡?Š ä‹‹Š äÔÔ#†?XEX‹?Š ä5Ó#ÔÔ‡?Š ä‹X?XEÔÓ€ÓHearings€on€H.R.€628,€H.R.€2131€and€H.R.€2184€before€the€Subcommittee€onÐ ©ù ÐTelecommunications€and€Finance€of€the€Committee€on€Energy€and€Commerce,€101òòstóó€Cong.,Ð )y Ð1òòstóó€Sess.,€May€24,€1989,€at€82€(testimony€of€John€Glynn)Ô#†Š ä‹‹?Š äsÓ#ÔÔ‡?Š ä‹‹Š äÔÔ#†?XEX‹?Š äµÓ#ÔÔ‡?Š ä‹X?XEÔ.Ô#†Š ä‹‹?Š äÕ#Ô€€This€testimony€was€referring€toÐ ©ù ÐMaryland€Public€Utility€Companies€Article€(PUC)€ðð€8„204,€which€restricts€the€use€ofÏautomated€dialing€equipment€to€make€prerecorded€solicitation€calls,€and€provides€forÏcriminal€penalties.€€The€private€right€of€action€for€violations€for€these€types€of€calls€arisesÏfrom€the€same€section€of€the€TCPA€as€the€private€right€of€action€for€unsolicited€faxes,€andÏwill€necessarily€be€effected€by€this€Courtððs€decision.€€The€above€testimony€shows€thatÏCongress€had€before€it€evidence,€specifically€from€Maryland,€that€state€agencies€were€notÏable€to€enforce€even€their€own€state€laws€restricting€automated€telemarketing€calls.€ÏPetitioner€does€not€know€whether€authority€to€enforce€PUC€ðð€8„204€was€later€delegated€toÏthe€Maryland€Attorney€General,€but€whether€it€was€or€not€is€irrelevant€to€the€fact€that€at€theÏtime€the€TCPA€was€being€considered€by€Congress,€the€evidence€was€that€state€agencies€wereÏeither€unable€or€unwilling€to€enforce€existing€laws.€Ô#†XEX‹Š äUÕ#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔThe€Maryland€Peopleððs€Counsel€alsoÐ ))y$- Ðpresciently€pointed€out€that:Ó€ÔÓÓÔ‡?Š ä‹‹Š äÔÐ ©*ù%/ ÐÐ ü+L'0 Ðà0  àThe€State€of€Maryland€recently€enacted€legislation€prohibiting€the€use€of€faxÏmachines€for€unsolicited€commercial€solicitation€to€encourage€a€person€to€purchaseÏgoods,€realty,€or€services.€€The€use€of€"fax"€machines€for€commercial€solicitation€isÏa€recent€development€but€one€which€òòwill€be€used€in€an€increasingly€aggressiveÐ ° Ðfashion€in€the€futureóó.€Ð°(#(# Ðà0  àThe€fax€machine,€used€properly€can€be€a€boon€to€business€efficiency.€It€providesÏprofessional€and€business€people€with€the€opportunity€to€transmit€written€materialsÏinstantly€from€one€local€location€to€the€other.€Unfortunately,€the€same€equipment€canÏalso€be€used€to€inundate€the€owners€of€fax€machines€with€voluminous€and€unsolicitedÏmaterial.€This€material€not€only€causes€the€same€annoyance€as€junk€mail,€but€itÏintroduces€added€expense€and€inefficiency€into€normal€office€operations.€Junk€faxÏincreases€costs€of€operating€a€commercial€fax€machine€and€ties€up€fax€machines€whenÏthey€could€be€used€for€constructive€purposes.€Ð (#(# Ðà0  àòòI€suspect€that€we€are€only€now€seeing€the€tip€of€the€iceberg.€As€this€inexpensive€formÐ V¦  Ðof€solicitation€becomes€more€popular,€the€problem€will€grow€in€scale.óó€The€MarylandÐ V¦ ÐStatute€is€a€constructive€attempt€to€eliminate€this€nuisance.€òòHowever,€Maryland€canÐ V¦ Ðonly€deal€with€intra-state€communications.€Because€of€Maryland's€proximity€to€theÏDistrict€of€Columbia,€the€law€can€easily€be€evadedóó.€A€bill€dealing€with€the€inter-stateÐ V¦ Ðimplications€of€junk€fax€would€be€useful€in€preventing€the€abuse€of€MarylandÏcitizens.€The€bill€proposed€is€a€reasoned€and€limited€effort€to€discourage€thisÏunconstructive€and€inefficient€practice.€Ð (#(# ÐÔ#†Š ä‹‹?Š ä9Ú#ÔòòÓ€ÓId.óó€at€82„83€(emphasis€added).€Congress€heard€this€testimony€from€the€Marylandððs€PeopleÐ ©ù ÐCounsel€explaining€Ô#†XEX‹Š ä­Ù#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔwhy,€because€of€both€the€limits€on€Maryland€prosecution€of€interstateÐ )y Ðcommunications€and€Marylandððs€proximity€to€D.C.,€the€TCPA€was€needed€to€control€theÏgrowing€harm€from€unsolicited€commercial€faxes.€€Respondents€argue€that€from€this€history,Ïthis€Court€should€conclude,€in€the€light€of€the€ambiguous€statutory€language,€that€CongressÏclearly€stated€the€following€intention:€that€Congress€meant€to€allow€Maryland€to€opt„out€ofÏthe€citizen€enforcement€mechanism€provided€in€the€very€federal€law€Congress€passed€toÏaddress€a€growing€problem€which€a€knowledgeable€attorney€from€Maryland€told€CongressÏMaryland€was€incapable€of€addressing,€and€which€was€correctly€predicted€to€get€muchÏworse.€€Respondentsðð€argument€must€fail.Ô#†XEX‹Š ä†â#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔ€€Ð )(y#' Ðà  àFurther€support€of€not€just€the€lack€of€will€for€government€enforcement,€but€theÏinability€to€prosecute,€is€provided€in€the€record€of€this€case.€€The€Maryland€AttorneyÐ |+Ì&+ ÐGeneralððs€office€is€not€authorized€to€resolve€business„to„business€disputes.€€E146€(MarchÏ22,€2000€letter€from€Maryland€Attorney€Generalððs€Consumer€Protection€Division€stating€thatÏð ðOur€authority€is€limited€to€complaints€arising€from€a€consumer€transaction.ðð).Ìà  àPetitioners€would€caution€this€Court€from€placing€too€much€emphasis€on€legislativeÏhistory,€particularly€when€it€revolves€around€the€comments€of€a€single€U.S.€Senator€cited€byÏPetitioners,€Respondents€and€amici€alike.€€Petitioners€say€this€despite€the€fact€that€Sen.ÏHollingsðð€few€statements€support€Petitionersðð€position€that€any€concern€of€Congress€wasÏover€improperly€telling€states€how€to€run€their€court€systems,€and€not€over€whether€CongressÏhad€to€power€to€require€the€states€to€hear€TCPA€cases.€€However,€Sen.€Hollingsðð€statements,Ïeven€coming€as€they€do€from€one€of€the€TCPAððs€main€sponsors,€should€not€be€given€tooÏmuch€weight.€€Congress€is€a€deliberative€body,€in€which€laws€go€through€many€stages€ofÏhearings€and€committees€before€final€passage.€€No€federal€law€should€be€interpretedÏprimarily€on€the€statements€of€one€member€of€Congress,€regardless€Ô#†XEX‹Š ä¶å#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔof€whose€side€thoseÐ S Ðcomments€might€support.€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€In€one€of€his€many€attacks€on€resorting€to€legislative€history,Ð ƒÓ ÐJustice€Scalia€stated€ð ðIf€one€were€to€search€for€an€interpretive€technique€that,€òòon€the€wholeóó,Ð S Ðwas€more€likely€to€confuse€than€to€clarify,€one€could€hardly€find€a€more€promising€candidateÏthan€legislative€history.€.€.€the€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä½ë#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔequivalent€of€entering€a€crowded€cocktail€party€and€lookingÐ S  Ðover€the€heads€of€the€guests€for€one's€friends.ððÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äOí#ÔÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°XBÓ€€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔòòConroy€v.€Aniskoffóó,€507€U.S.€511,€519€(1993)Ð ƒÓ" Ð(Scalia,€J.€concurring€in€judgment)€(emphasis€in€original).ÌÔ#†XEX‹Š ä^ë#ÔÐ ÐÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°XBÓÔ#†XEXXXEXî#ÔÓ€ÌáÓÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔò ò(C)€à0  àThe€Tenth€Amendment€does€not€prohibit€Congress€from€requiring€state€courtsÐ 8#ˆ( Ðto€hear€federal€causes€of€action.ó óÐ8$ˆ)(#(# ÐÓ€ÓÔ#†XEX‹Š ä¦ï#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔà  àPetitionersðð€Brief€noted€that€state€courts€Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔhave€an€original€obligation€to€hear€casesÐ ‹%Û * Ðunder€federal€law€like€the€TCPAÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š äñ#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€under€the€Supremacy€Clause,€which€is€binding€upon€states,Ð  '[", Ðcourts,€judges€and€the€peopleÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä§ñ#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ.€€The€Supremacy€Clause€states€that:Ô#†+XEX‹+Š ä¯ð#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹X+XEÔÐ ‹(Û#. ÐÐ ^*®%0 ÐÓ„ÓÓ€zðÓà0  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 (#(# ÐÓ  ÓÓ€ÓSupremacy€Clause,€U.S.€Constitution,€art.€VI,€ðð€2Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äUò#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€(emphasis€added).€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äÆô#ÔThe€MarylandÐ S ÐDeclaration€of€Rights€recognizes€this€same€fundamental€constitutional€concept.€€Md.ÏDeclaration€of€Rights,€Art.€2.Ô‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔÐ  S ÐÓQôÓÔ#†+XEX‹+Š ä»ò#ÔÓ€]ôÓÓ€ÓÔ‡+Š ä‹X+XEÔÓ  Óà  àStates€are€presumed€to€have€concurrent€jurisdiction€over€federal€claims.€€The€fewÐ Ö &  ÐÔ#†+XEX‹+Š ä=ö#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹X+XEÔexceptions€to€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä®õ#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔthe€presumption€of€concurrent€jurisdiction€are€rebuttal€ð ðby€an€explicit€statutoryÐ V¦  Ðdirective,€by€unmistakable€implication€from€legislative€history,€or€by€a€clear€incompatibilityÏbetween€state„court€jurisdiction€and€federal€interests.ðð€€òòGulf€Offshore€Co.€v.€Mobil€Oil€Corp.óó,Ð V¦  Ð453€U.S.€473,€478€(1981).€€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äM÷#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔNone€of€these€three€conditions€exists€regarding€the€TCPA.€€ThereÐ Ö& Ðis€no€explicit€direction€in€the€TCPA€or€its€legislative€history€to€divest€states€of€jurisdiction,Ïno€unmistakable€implication€from€legislative€history,€and€no€clear€incompatibility€problemsÏwith€state€and€federal€court€interests.€€State€court€jurisdiction€is€therefore€presumed€as€aÏmatter€of€law.ÌñÔ\ñÌñÔ\ñò òÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š äïø#Ôà  à(1)€€State€courts€are€not€the€exclusive€jurisdiction€for€TCPA€claims.ó óÐ ©ù ÐÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔà  àTCPA€enforcement€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä'û#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔis€not€exclusively€in€state€court,€as€Respondents€argue.€Ð |Ì ÐEnforcementÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä†û#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€jurisdiction€is€split€between€state€and€federal€courts,€with€state€attorney€generalÐ üL Ðand€FCC€enforcement€actionable€in€federal€court,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(f),€and€private€citizenÏsuits€actionable€in€state€court,€47€U.S.C.€ððððÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä!ü#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€227(b)(3)€and€(c)(5).€€Congress€created€aÐ ü L# Ðreasonable€distribution€of€jurisdiction€based€on€what€it€perceived€to€be€the€types€of€cases€thatÏwould€typically€be€brought€by€private,€state€and€federal€persons€or€entities.€€TCPAÏdefendants€have€argued€that€the€availability€of€state€attorney€general€and€FCC€enforcementÏmechanisms€does€not€leave€private€citizens€without€relief€from€unwanted€solicitations.€€InÏdoing€so,€they€recognize€that€TCPA€enforcement€is€not€available€exclusively€in€state€court.ÌñÕ\ñÌñÕ\ñÐ ",r'1 Ðà  àRecent€case€law€further€defeats€Respondentsðð€argument€that€the€TCPA€enforcementÏjurisdiction€resides€exclusively€in€state€courts,€even€for€private€litigants.€€In€òòAccountingÐ 0€ ÐOutsourcing,€LLC€v.€Verizon€Wireless€Personal€Communications,€LPóó,€2003€U.S.€Dist.Ð ° ÐLEXIS€15251€(decided€Sep.€4,€2003)€(M.D.€La.),€a€U.S.€District€Court€in€Louisiana€held€that€Ïfederal€courts€are€not€precluded€from€hearing€TCPA€claims€under€the€diversity€statute,€28ÏU.S.C.€ðð€1332.€€The€court€refused€to€remand€a€TCPA€class€action€that€had€been€removed€byÏthe€Defendants€to€federal€court.€€Ìà  àThe€Louisiana€court€did€not€decide€the€separate€issue€of€whether€federal€courts€canÏhave€supplemental€€jurisdiction€over€TCPA€claims.€€However,€the€magistrateððs€judge€in€theÏsame€case€concluded€that€supplemental€jurisdiction€did€exist.€€òòId.óó€at€slip€op.€4„5€(citing€JulyÐ ƒÓ  Ð1,€2003€Magistrateððs€Report€and€Recommendation€on€motion€to€remand).Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä[ý#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€€This€conclusionÐ S Ðis€consistent€with€the€only€other€opinion€to€decide€this€issue.€€In€òòKinder€v.€Citibankóó,€2000Ð ƒÓ ÐU.S.€Dist.€LEXIS€13853,€at€11€(S.€D.€Cal.),€the€court€found€that€ð ðnothing€in€the€TCPAÏprecludes€federal€courts€from€hearing€TCPA€claims€where€some€other€independent€basis€forÏjurisdiction€exists.ðð€€The€òòKinderóó€court€also€found€diversity€jurisdiction€in€federal€courts€forÐ S ÐTCPA€claims.€€òòId.óó€(ð ðThe€Court€therefore€retains€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€PlaintiffððsÐ ƒÓ ÐTCPA€claim€based€on€diversity€of€citizenship,€and€alternatively,€under€supplementalÏjurisdiction,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1367.ðð).Ìà  àThus,€federal€court€jurisdiction€over€the€TCPA€exists€not€only€for€state€and€federalÏgovernment€enforcementÔ#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä³#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€actions€brought€directly€under€the€TCPA€itself€pursuant€to€47Ð Ö!&& ÐU.S.C.€ðð€227(f),€but€also€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä2#ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔfor€private€claims€under€both€diversity€and€supplementalÐ V#¦( Ðjurisdiction,€including€specifically€class€actions.€€There€simply€is€no€ððburdenðð€on€state€courtÏsystems€arising€from€the€TCPA.€€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š ää#Ô€This€fact€was€stated€unambiguously€in€a€report€from€theÐ V&¦!, ÐCongressional€Budget€Office€(CBO)€included€as€part€of€the€Senate€TCPA€hearings.€€TheÏCBO€concluded€that€ò òÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔð ðNo€costs€would€be€incurred€by€state€or€local€governments€as€aÐ V)¦$0 Ðresult€of€enactment€of€this€billó ó.ðð€€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä± #ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔSeptember€9,€1991€letter€to€Sen.€Hollings€from€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äs #ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔRobertÐ Ü*,&2 ÐD.€Reischauer,€Director€of€the€CBO.Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ää #ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š äd #ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€S.€Rep.€102„178€(Oct.€9,€1991)€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä§ #ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ1991€U.S.C.C.A.N.Ð ° Ð1968.€ÓB.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°°XBÓÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š ä #ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€The€CBO€letter€completely€refutes€Respondentsðð€arguments€that€state€legislaturesÐ 0€ Ðmight€have€a€cost€reason€or€motivation€sufficient€to€justify€a€decision€to€close€their€courtsÏto€TCPA€private€actions.€€The€CBO€said€there€would€be€no€burden,€and€Respondents€andÏamici€have€produced€absolutely€no€evidence€of€any€such€state€burden.€€Ìà  àDiversity€and€supplemental€jurisdiction€in€federal€courts€for€major€privateÏenforcement€cases€such€as€class€actions,€and€for€state€and€federal€government€enÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š ä¹ #ÔÔ‡+Š ä‹‹Š äÔforcementÐ S  Ðjurisdiction€directly€under€the€TCPA€dictates€that€there€will€be€no€such€state€burden€in€theÏfuture.€€Any€burden€on€state€courts€is€further€reduced€by€the€formal€and€informal€complaintÏprocedures€available€against€violators€under€the€FCCððs€established€complaint€process.€€òòSeeÐ ƒÓ  ÐConsumer.Net€v.€AT&T€Corp.óó,€15€F.C.C.R.€281€(1999)€(formal€complaint€filed€by€consumerÐ S Ðgroup€for€TCPA€violations)€and€òòGet„Aways,€Inc.óó€15€F.C.C.R.€1805€(1999)€(FCC€forfeitureÐ ƒÓ Ðfollowing€investigation€in€response€to€informal€consumer€complaint).€€Petitioners€do€notÏassert€that€there€is€absolutely€no€burden€whatsoever€for€a€state€court€to€hear€a€TCPA€claim,Ïonly€that€the€burden€is€not€material€or€excessive.€Ìà  àEven€if€there€was€a€burden€on€the€states,€any€burden€arises€from€the€SupremacyÏClause€itself,€which€empowers€Congress€to€require€states€to€entertain€federal€causes€ofÏaction.Ô#†Š ä‹‹+Š ä#Ôòòóó€òòTesta€v.€Kattóó,€330€U.S.€386,€393€(1947)€(ð ðstate€court€cannot€ððrefuse€to€enforce€theÐ Ö&" Ðright€arising€from€the€law€of€the€United€States€because€of€conceptions€of€impolicy€or€wantÏof€wisdom€on€the€part€of€Congress€in€having€called€into€play€its€lawful€powers.ðððð)€(citationÏomitted);€òòHowlett€v.€Roseóó,€496€U.S.€òòóó356,€369€(1990)€(òòóóÔ#†XEX‹Š äýö#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔð ðA€state€court€may€not€deny€a€federalÐ V#¦( Ðright,€when€the€parties€are€properly€before€it,€in€the€absence€of€a€ððvalid€excuse.ðððð)òòóó.€€AnÐ Ö$& * Ðexcuse€that€is€ð ðinconsistent€with€or€violates€federal€law€is€not€a€valid€excuse.ðð€òòIdóó.€at€371.Ð V&¦!, Ðð ðWhen€Congress,€in€the€exertion€of€the€power€confided€to€it€by€the€Constitution,€adopted€theÏact,€it€spoke€for€all€the€people€and€all€the€States€and€thereby€established€a€policy€for€all.ðð€òòIdóó.€Ð V)¦$0 ÐThe€òòóóð ðvalid€excuseðð€exemption€simply€restates€prior€law:€unless€an€ð ðunmistakably€clearððÐ Ö*&&2 ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š äº#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔexception€is€spelled€out€in€the€statute,€state€courts€have€jurisdiction€over€actions€to€enforceÐ ° Ðfederal€statutes.€òòWill€v.€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔMichigan€Dept.€of€State€PoliceÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äC#Ôóó,€491€U.S.€58,€65€(1989);€òòUnitedÐ 0€ ÐStates€v.€Bassóó,€404€U.S.€336,€349€(1971)Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€(ð ðunless€Congress€conveys€its€purpose€clearly,€itÐ ° Ðwill€not€be€deemed€to€have€significantly€changed€the€federal„state€balanceðð)€(citationsÏomitted).Ô#†XEX‹Š ä“#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔò òòòóóÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š ä #ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔÐ °  ÐÓ€+öÓØØÝ ‚%é; ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚%é;­Ýà0  àÔ2Õ>Ô(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#àÝ  ÝRequiring€state€courts€to€hear€a€federal€cause€of€action€does€notÐ ƒ Ó  Ðconstitute€a€ð ðcommandeering€of€state€governmentsðð€in€violation€of€theÏTenth€Amendment.݃%é;­ØÝŒÐ ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äD#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔó óÓ€Óà  àRespondents€candidly€admit€that€they€ð ðdo€not€contend€that€the€Supreme€Court€hasÐ Ö&  Ðever€considered,€let€alone€held,€that€Congressðð€conferring€of€exclusive€jurisdiction€on€theÏstate€judiciary€for€violations€of€federal€law€is,€in€fact,€violative€of€the€Tenth€Amendment.ðð€ÏResp.€Brf.€at€12.€€Then€relying€primarily€on€just€two€cases,€Respondents€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äV#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔargue€that€requiringÐ V¦ Ðstate€courts€to€be€the€exclusive€forum€to€hear€a€particular€federal€cause€of€action€wouldÏamount€to€a€ð ðcommandeering€of€state€governmentðð€in€violation€of€the€Tenth€Amendment.€ÏòòId.óó€at€13.€€Ð Ö& ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š äù#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔà  àSetting€aside€the€fact€that€state€courts€are€not€the€exclusive€forum€for€TCPA€cases,Ð ©ù Ðfor€either€private€or€governmental€plaintiffs,€the€two€cases€relied€on€by€Respondents€do€notÏsupport€their€argument.€€While€it€is€impermissible€for€Congress€to€require€states€toÏimplement€a€federal€program€via€their€executive€or€legislative€branches,€it€is€acceptable€andÏconsistent€with€the€Tenth€Amendment€for€Congress€to€require€states€to€make€their€judicialÏbranch€amenable€to€federal€causes€of€action.€€Ìà  àIn€òòPrintz€v.€United€Statesóó,€521€U.S.€898€(1997),€the€Supreme€Court€invalidated€theÐ ü#L' Ðfederal€Brady€Handgun€Violence€Prevention€Act€which€would€have€required€the€statesðð€chiefÏlaw€enforcement€officers€to€conduct€background€checks€on€prospective€handgun€purchasers.€ÏThis€implicated€and€commandeered€the€statesðð€executive€branch€to€carry€out€a€federalÏprogram.€€For€this€reason,€it€ran€afoul€of€the€Tenth€Amendment,€which€provides€that€ð ðTheÏpowers€not€delegated€to€the€United€States€by€the€Constitution,€nor€prohibited€by€it€to€theÐ |+Ì&1 Ðstates,€are€reserved€to€the€states€respectively,€or€to€the€people.ðð€€There€was€no€impact€fromÏthe€Brady€Act€on€the€statesðð€judicial€systems.€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä*#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äԀР0€ Ðà  àIn€òòPrintzóó€the€Supreme€Court€€looked€at€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä¨$#Ôð ðhistorical€understanding€and€practiceÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔðð€andÐ S Ðobserved€that€ð ðÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äb%#Ôthat€the€Constitutionò òó ó€was€originally€understood€to€permit€imposition€of€anÐ ƒ Ó Ðobligation€on€state€judges€to€enforce€federal€prescriptions€related€to€matters€appropriate€forÏthe€judicial€power.€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€òòId.€óóat€907.€€The€Court€noted€that€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä«&#ÔòòSecond€Employers'€Liability€CasesóóÐ ƒ Ó  Ðð ðstand€for€the€proposition€that€a€state€court€must€entertain€a€claim€arising€under€federal€lawÏððwhen€its€ordinary€jurisdiction€as€prescribed€by€local€law€is€appropriate€to€the€occasion€andÏis€invoked€in€conformity€with€those€laws.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€907,€n.€1€(citing€òòSecond€Employers'Ð S  ÐLiability€Casesóó,€223€U.S.€1,€56„57€(1912)).Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä½(#Ô€Distinguishing€judicial€powers€and€obligationsÐ ƒÓ  Ðfrom€those€of€the€legislative€and€executive€branches,€the€Court€reasoned:ÌÓ€xÓà0  àIt€is€understandable€why€courts€should€have€been€viewed€distinctively€in€this€regard;€Ð (#(# Ðà0  àunlike€legislatures€and€executives,€òòò òthey€applied€the€law€of€other€sovereigns€all€theÐ )y Ðtimeó óóó€.€.€.€€The€Constitution€itself,€in€the€Full€Faith€and€Credit€Clause,€Art.€IV,€ðð€1,Ð -} Ðgenerally€required€such€enforcement€with€respect€to€obligations€arising€in€otherÏStates.€€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔÐ1(#(# ÐòòÓ€ÓId.óó€at€907€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€added).€€The€Supreme€Court€considered€acts€ofÐ „Ô ÐCongress€early€in€this€countryððs€history€more€probative€than€latter€acts€in€determining€theÏreach€of€federal€constitutional€powers.€òò€Id.óó€at€905€(Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äg+#Ôð ðearly€congressional€enactmentsÐ „Ô Ðððprovid[e]€'contemporaneous€and€weighty€evidence'€of€the€Constitution's€meaning.ðð)€(innerÏcitations€omitted).€€After€examining€historical€laws€and€cases,€the€Supreme€CourtððsÏconclusion€distinguished€the€obligations€imposed€on€the€judicial€and€executive€branches€€byÏthe€early€sessions€of€Congressðð:ÌÓ€¨+Óà0  àFor€these€reasons,€we€do€not€think€the€early€statutes€imposing€obligations€on€stateÏcourts€imply€a€power€of€Congress€to€impress€the€state€executive€into€its€service.€ÏIndeed,€it€can€be€argued€that€òòò òthe€numerousness€of€these€statutesó óóó,€contrasted€withÐ W(§#+ Ðthe€utter€lack€of€statutes€imposing€obligationsò ò€ó óon€the€States'€executiveÐ [)«$, Ð(notwithstanding€the€attractiveness€of€that€course€to€Congress),€suggests€an€assumedÏabsence€of€such€power.Ð_+¯&.(#(# ÐòòÓ€ÓId.óó€at€907„908€(emphasis€added).€€€The€Supreme€Court€thus€found€a€strong€historical€basisÐ ° Ðfor€Congressional€imposition€on€state€judiciaries,€based€on€numerous€early€statutes.€€TheÏobligation€of€state€courts€to€hear€these€early€statutes€arose€then,€as€now,€from€the€Full€FaithÏand€Credit€Clause€when€state€courts€apply€the€laws€of€other€sovereign€states,€and€theÏSupremacy€Clause€when€applying€a€law€of€Congress,€the€national€sovereign.Ìà  àòòPrintzóó€clearly€provides€no€support€for€Respondentsðð€argument€that€federal€creationÐ ƒ Ó  Ðof€exclusive€state€court€jurisdiction€of€a€federal€cause€of€action€violates€the€TenthÏAmendment€or€dual„sovereignty.€€Neither€does€the€other€main€case€relied€on€byÏRespondents,€òòNew€York€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€144€(1992).€€Ð S  Ðà  àIn€òòNew€York€óóthe€Supreme€Court€invalidated€the€ððtake€titleðð€provisions€of€the€Low„Ð Ö& ÐLevel€Radioactive€Waste€Policy€Act€as€an€impermissible€requirement€on€state€governmentsÏto€implement€federal€regulations:€ð ðNo€matter€how€powerful€the€federal€interest€involved,€theÏConstitution€simply€does€not€give€Congress€the€authority€to€require€the€States€to€regulate.ðð€ÏòòId.óó€at€178.€€Ð Ö& Ðà  àThe€Supreme€Court€in€òòNew€Yorkóó€cited€the€ð ðwell€established€power€of€Congress€toÐ ©ù Ðpass€laws€enforceable€in€state€courts.ðð€€òòNew€Yorkóó,€505€U.S.€at€178€(citing€several€cases).€Ð )y ÐThe€laws€at€issue€in€the€earlier€cases€were€enforceable€as€simple€applications€of€theÏSupremacy€Clausesððs€provision€that€federal€law€is€the€supreme€law€of€the€land,€and€becauseÏthey€all€involved:ÌÓ€~0Óà0  àcongressional€regulations€of€individuals,€not€congressional€requirements€that€StatesÏregulate.€€Federal€statutes€enforceable€in€state€courts€do,€in€a€sense,€direct€state€judgesÏto€enforce€them,€but€this€sort€of€federal€"direction"€of€state€judges€is€mandated€by€theÏtext€of€the€Supremacy€Clause.€No€comparable€constitutional€provision€authorizesÏCongress€to€command€state€legislatures€to€legislate.€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔÐ|&Ì!*(#(# ÐÌòòÓ€ÓId.óó€at€178„179.€€So€here€again,€the€Supreme€Court€distinguished€Congressional€requirementsÐ ")r$, Ðimposed€on€state€courts€versus€state€legislatures,€on€the€basis€that€the€laws€at€issue€regulatedÏindividuals,€and€not€the€States€as€entities.€€òòNew€Yorkóó€likewise€does€not€support€RespondentsððÐ ",r'0 Ðposition.Ìà  àA€further€constitutional€problem€raised€by€Respondentsðð€argument€that€Congress€mayÏonly€create€state€court€jurisdiction€if€it€also€creates€concurrent€federal€jurisdiction€is€ArticleÏIII€of€the€Constitution.€€Article€III,€ðð€1€defines€and€creates€the€federal€court€system,€includingÏthe€Supreme€Court€and€the€lower€federal€courts.€€Congress€has€sole€discretion€regarding€theÏinferior€federal€courts€and€in€defining€their€jurisdiction,€although€Congress€is€ð ðÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äü8#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€notÐ ƒ Ó  Ðconstitutionally€required€to€create€inferior€Article€III€courts€to€hear€and€decide€cases€withinÏthe€judicial€power€of€the€United€States.ðð€€òòPalmore€v.€United€Statesóó,€411€U.S.€389,€400„401.Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä§<#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔÔ#†XEX‹Š är#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹XXEԀРƒÓ  ÐIf€inferior€courts€are€created€by€Congress,€Congress€is€not€ð ðrequired€to€invest€them€with€allÏthe€jurisdiction€it€was€authorized€to€bestow€under€Art.€III.ðð€€Congressðð€power€over€theÏcreation€and€defining€of€inferior€federal€courts€is€expansive:ÌÓ€>9Óà0  àThe€judicial€power€of€the€United€States€.€.€.€is€(except€in€enumerated€instances,Ïapplicable€exclusively€to€this€court)€dependent€for€its€distribution€and€organization,Ïand€for€the€modes€of€its€exercise,€entirely€upon€the€action€of€Congress,€who€possessÏthe€sole€power€of€creating€the€tribunals€(inferior€to€the€Supreme€Court)€.€.€.€and€ofÏinvesting€them€with€jurisdiction€ò òó óeither€limited,€concurrent,€or€exclusive,€and€ofÐ Ö& Ðwithholding€jurisdiction€from€them€in€the€exact€degrees€and€character€which€toÏCongress€may€seem€proper€for€the€public€good.€òòÐÖ&(#(# ÐÓ€ÓId.óó€(citing€òòCary€v.€Curtisóó,€44€U.S.€236,€245€(1845)).€€Ð )y Ðà  àAssuming€arguendo€that€Congress€may€not€constitutionally€require€states€to€be€theÏexclusive€forum€for€a€federal€cause€of€action,€a€point€Petitioners€do€not€concede,€and€oneÏnot€even€raised€in€this€case€since€the€TCPA€provides€for€concurrent€state€and€federal€courtÏjurisdiction€for€both€private€citizens€and€governmental€entities,€requiring€Congress€to€investÏthe€federal€courts€with€jurisdiction€in€order€to€effectuate€and€enforce€its€laws€runs€afoul€ofÏCongressðð€plenary€power€under€Article€III.€€Respondentsðð€reasoning€would€òòrequireóó€CongressÐ |&Ì!) Ðto€create€federal€court€jurisdiction€every€time€Congress€created€state€court€jurisdiction,Ïeviscerating€Congressðð€power€and€discretion€under€Article€III€over€the€federal€courts.€€ItÏwould€mean€every€federal€act€would€require€federal€jurisdiction.€€Respondents€would€evenÐ ü*L&/ Ðstrip€Congress€of€its€Article€III€powers€when€passing€a€statute€like€the€TCPA,€where€creatingÏstate€jurisdiction,€even€exclusive€state€court€jurisdiction€for€certain€claims,€is€a€reasonableÏdecision€by€Congress€given€the€anticipated€small€size€and€nature€of€many€TCPA€suits€andÏCongressðð€goal€to€make€citizen€enforcement€easy.€€This€interpretationÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äÆ=#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€is€unconstitutional,Ð 0 € Ðor€at€best,€one€which€creates€a€very€thorny€constitutional€issue€which€this€Court€must€avoidÏreaching.€€òòNew€Yorkóó,€505€U.S.€at€170€(ð ðwhere€an€otherwise€€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äG#Ôacceptable€construction€of€aÐ 0 €  Ðstatute€would€raise€serious€constitutional€problems,€the€Court€will€construe€the€statute€toÏavoid€such€problems€unless€such€construction€is€plainly€contrary€to€the€intent€of€CongressÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ.ðð)Ð 0€  Ð(citation€omitted).€Ìà  àEven€if€exclusive€state€court€jurisdiction€for€a€federal€claim€seems€unusual,€it€isÏcertainly€not€unique€to€the€TCPA.€Respondentsðð€counsel€claimed€they€were€ð ðhard€pressedÏto€find€a€federal€statute€that€even€purports€to€do€that.€€The€closest€we€have€come€is€aÏprovision€of€the€Postal€Service€Act,€39€U.S.C.€3017€(2000),€which€utilizes€the€same€ððifÏotherwise€permittedðð€language€found€in€the€TCPA.ðð€€Resp.€Brf.€at€9,€n.€4.€€In€fact,€the€lawÏreview€article€cited€in€the€Petitionersðð€Brief€cited€several€federal€statutes:€The€DeceptiveÏMail€Prevention€and€Enforcement€Act,€39€U.S.C.€ðð€3017(e)€(1998)€(injunction/recovery€withÏrespect€to€prohibited€mailings€in€language€the€mirrors€the€TCPAððs€private€right€of€action);Ï42€U.S.C.€ðð€604a(i)€(1998)€(enforcement/compliance€with€respect€to€public€welfare€grantsÏto€states);€15€U.S.C.€ðð€3207(b)€(1994)€(enforcement€of€natural€gas€retail€sales€regulation)€Ï(All€are€cited€in€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä I#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔRobert€Biggerstaff,€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä9M#ÔòòState€Courts€and€the€Telephone€Consumer€ProtectionÐ ƒ!Ó& ÐAct€of€Ô‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ1991:€€Must€States€Opt„in?€Can€States€Opt„out?,óó€33€Conn.€L.€Rev.€404Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äàM#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€òòÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äiN#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔóó(2001)€at€442,Ð #S( Ðn.€207)€(these€statutes€are€provided€at€the€back€of€this€Reply€Brief)Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä¯N#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ.€Thus,€the€TCPA€is€notÐ ƒ$Ó* Ðunique€in€this€regard.à  àÐ &S!, ÐÌÌÐ |+Ì&2 Ðà  àThe€history€of€state€court€jurisdiction€over€federal€claims€supports€the€private€rightÏof€action€in€both€the€statutes€just€cited€and€the€TCPA:ÌÓ€¼AÓà0  àuntil€1875€Congress€refrained€from€providing€the€lower€federal€courts€with€generalÏfederal„question€jurisdiction.€€Until€that€time,€òòò òthe€state€courts€provided€the€onlyÐ  S Ðforum€for€vindicating€many€important€federal€claimsó óóó.Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä\O#ÔòòóóÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔ€€Even€then,€withÐ  W Ðexceptions,€the€state€courts€remained€the€sole€forum€for€the€trial€of€federal€cases€notÏinvolving€the€required€jurisdictional€amount,€and€for€the€most€part€retainedò òó óÐ  [ Ðconcurrent€jurisdiction€of€federal€claims€properly€within€the€jurisdiction€of€the€lowerÏfederal€courts.€€Ð (#(# ÐòòÓ€ÓPalmore€v.€United€Statesóó,€411€U.S.€389,€401„402€(1973)€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€for€theÐ ^®  Ðfirst€100€years,€this€countryððs€state€courts€were€the€sole€forum€for€many€federal€claims.€€TheÏTCPA€is€not€either€unique€or€new.€€The€U.S.€has€a€history€of€state€courts€being€the€exclusiveÏforum€for€federal€claims.€€The€òòBiggerstaffóó€articles€touches€on€this€history,€and€the€why€„Ð Þ. Ðbecause€when€this€country€was€started,€the€federal€courts€were€not€yet€created,€so€theÏexisting€state€courts€had€to€hear€a€variety€of€claims,€including€federal€claims,€and€did€soÏwithout€objection.€€òòBiggerstaffóó€at€433„438.€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äÖQ#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔÐ ^® ÐÔ#†Š ä‹‹Š äV#ÔÓ\öÓò òó óÓ  ÓÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔà  àIn€summary,€private€suits€under€the€TCPA€call€upon€the€judicial€resources€of€theÐ 1 Ðstates,€not€their€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä”V#ÔòòÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔóólegislative€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä\W#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔor€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä­W#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔexecutive€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š äòW#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔresources,€Ô#†Š ä‹‹Š ä>X#ÔÔ‡Š ä‹‹Š äÔand€therefore€do€not€fall€within€theÐ ± Ðð ðcommandeeringðð€to€be€avoided€under€the€Tenth€Amendment.€€€Even€if€the€TCPA€createdÏexclusive€state€court€jurisdiction€for€enforcement,€such€a€delegation€by€Congress€is€neitherÏnew€or€unique€in€this€country.€€ÌÐ  "T# ÐÔ#†XEX‹Š ä>#ÔÔ#†XEXXXE‹X#ÔÓˆVÓÓ€]SÓÔ‡Š ä‹XXEÔÓ€Óò òñÙ\ñIñÙ\ñVñÚ\ñIñÚ\ñ.€òòà0  àCONCLUSIONó óóóа(#(# Ðà  àCorresponding€to€the€Questions€Presented:Ì1.à0  àThe€Court€of€Special€Appeals€erred€in€holding€that€a€state€has€the€constitutionalÐ V¦ Ðauthority€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€the€TCPA.€€The€Supremacy€Clause€requires€states€toÏhonor€federal€laws,€and€the€TCPA€creates€no€material€burden€on€the€state€courtsÏimplicating€or€running€afoul€of€the€Tenth€Amendment.Ð (#(# Ð2.€à0  àThe€TCPA€statute€and€legislative€history€contain€no€clear€statement€sufficient€toÐ ©ù  Ðalter€the€traditional€federal„state€constitutional€balance€so€as€to€permit€states€toÏchoose€to€ð ðopt€outðð€of€their€obligation€to€honor€federal€law€and€hear€privateÏTCPA€suits.€€The€statute€and€legislative€history€demonstrate€that€the€TCPAððsÏprivate€right€of€action€languageÔ#†XEX‹Š ä