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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT