ILNews

Court: federal suit should have been dismissed

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The federal District Court in Indianapolis should have dismissed a suit challenging Indiana's prerecorded telephone messages statute because a state court was already considering the issue and could have provided an adequate legal remedy, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.

The three-judge appellate panel also chastised U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney for concluding last October that the then-approaching 2006 congressional election was a reason for urgent attention on this issue.

The 7th Circuit decision came in FreeEats.com, Inc. v. State of Indiana and Steve Carter, Attorney General, No. 06-3900. The issue stems from near-simultaneous disputes in both state and federal courts last year involving Indiana Code 24-5-14-5, the Automated Dialing Machine Statute.

Virginia-based company FreeEats.com sought to halt the attorney general's enforcement of the little-used statute adopted in 1988 and stating: "A caller may not use or connect to a telephone line in an automatic dialing-announcing device unless the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message; and that the message was immediately preceded by a live operator who obtained the person's consent before the message began."

Carter's office had filed a state claim in Brown Circuit Court in early September 2006 against another company that had hired FreeEats.com to make the pre-recorded calls to Indiana residents from Virginia. Three days after that state court action, FreeEats.com filed this federal action seeking an injunction to stop enforcement.

Judge McKinney ruled Oct. 24, 2006, that Indiana's statute on automated phone calls does not restrict interstate commerce and is not pre-empted by federal law, but he also denied Carter's motion to stay and dismiss the case pursuant to the abstention doctrine spelled out in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). That ruling required federal courts to abstain from enjoining most ongoing state proceedings unless there are certain extraordinary circumstances.

While the state had argued that the federal court could abstain while similar issues were resolved in pending state court litigation, Judge McKinney decided to forward those issues on because of the federal issues involved - specifically the Nov. 7 general election.

But Circuit Judge Daniel Manion and his appellate colleagues disagreed in an 18-page opinion and remanded the case for dismissal.

"Whether a fast-approaching election justifies refusing to abstain under the principles of Younger is an issue of first impression in this circuit," he wrote.

"We further note that elections, be they municipal, state, or federal, take place on a very regular basis," Judge Manion wrote. "If we were to conclude that waiting until weeks before an election to file a suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from a state statute that was enacted eighteen years earlier gives rise to 'extraordinary circumstances,' then it would give license to the federal courts to run roughshed over the state courts' rights to adjudicate properly filed actions involving constitutional challenges that relate in some way to that election. That result would not respect comity, and this it would violate the core principles of Younger."

Aside from the election issue, the 7th Circuit also noted that the Indiana state court clearly has the power to grant a preliminary injunction to FreeEats.com to prevent the state from enforcing the statute, as well as issuing decisions on other federal law preemption and constitutionality claims.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT