Mo. Judge Says He Erred by Dismissing TCPA Claim Instead of Remanding It

Sheila and Dennis Thompson were correct to ask U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark for Eastern Missouri to remand count II of their first amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against Vintage Stock to St. Louis County Circuit Court where it originated before the home entertainment retailer removed it in January 2023, said Clark’s memorandum and order Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-00042).

Clark erred Feb. 8 when he granted Vintage Stock’s motion to dismiss without prejudice that count of the Thompsons’ complaint (see 2402090027) instead of remanding it to state court, said his memorandum and order. The judge's Feb. 8 ruling held that the plaintiffs lacked Spokeo standing to bring the count II allegation that the retailer failed to institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to be called, said the memorandum.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins held that a plaintiff must suffer an injury-in-fact that’s concrete and particularized to satisfy Article III standing. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly ruled that if a litigant in a removed case lacks Spokeo standing, the case shouldn’t be dismissed but must be remanded to the state court from which it came, said the Thompsons. Clark, in his Tuesday memorandum and order, agreed.

Typically, when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim, it dismisses the claim without prejudice, said Clark’s memorandum and order. But under the 8th Circuit’s 2018 decision in Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, on claims removed from state court, a "somewhat counterintuitive" result must occur when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and the court must remand the claim to state court, it said.

It’s “clear” under 8th Circuit precedent that the court must remand a claim it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over even if the court “may, or will, continue exercising jurisdiction over other claims,” said Clark’s memorandum and order. In Hillesheim, the 8th Circuit concluded that federal courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over three of the plaintiff’s four claims because they were moot, it said.

Because the defendant had removed those claims to federal court, the 8th Circuit ordered the district court to remand them to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, said the memorandum and order. The court then addressed the only remaining claim, over which the court had supplemental jurisdiction, it said.

“As odd as it seems,” precedent requires the court to remand to state court a removed claim over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, even if the court will continue exercising jurisdiction over other claims, said Clark’s memorandum and order. In his dismissal order, Clark concluded that the Thompsons lacked standing to assert a Section 64.1200(d) TCPA claim, “which is a prerequisite for subject-matter jurisdiction,” it said. Thus, because Vintage Stock removed the Section 64.1200(d) claim to federal court, the court must remand the claim to state court, it said.