United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
THOMAS ANDERSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiff Glenn Edmonds' Motion to Remand
(ECF No. 11) filed on December 9, 2016. Defendant DirecTV,
LLC has responded in opposition. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion to Remand is DENIED.
October 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Circuit
Court for Hardeman County, Tennessee. Defendant removed the
case to this Court on November 14, 2016. According to the
Notice of Removal, this Court has original jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because
Plaintiffs claim for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act arises under federal law. In his Motion to
Remand, Plaintiff concedes that his Telephone Consumer
Protection Act arises under the laws of the United States, 47
U.S.C. § 227(b), but argues that the Act confers
concurrent jurisdiction over claims under the Act on state
courts as well as federal courts. As such, removal was
improper, and the Court must remand the case. Defendant has
responded in opposition arguing that concurrent jurisdiction
does not preclude removal of a claim over which a federal
court has concurrent jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court
should deny Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
a plaintiff files a case in state court that could have been
brought in a federal district court, a defendant may invoke
the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, to secure a
federal forum.” “Only state-court actions that
originally could have been filed in federal court may be
removed to federal court by the
defendant.” The burden to establish the existence of
federal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence rests
with the removing party.
issue presented is whether Plaintiff's Telephone Consumer
Protection Act claim is removable under 28 U.S.C. §
1441. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §
227, outlaws specific telemarketing practices. In Mims v.
Arrow Financial Services, LLC, the Supreme Court
concluded that state courts and federal courts have
concurrent jurisdiction over claims arising under the
The Supreme Court concluded that TCPA claims “plainly
arise under the laws of the United States” and
thereby confer federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331. Perhaps most important of all, Justice
Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous court, implied that TCPA
claims are fully removable where she stated in a footnote
that “[w]hen Congress wants to make federal claims
instituted in state court nonremovable, it says just
that.”Although this remark is arguably dicta, it
is entirely consistent with Sixth Circuit cases holding that
“a congressional grant of concurrent jurisdiction in a
statute does not imply that removal is
prohibited.” In light of this authority, the Court
concludes that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's TCPA claims and that Defendant's removal
of the claims was proper. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand is DENIED.
 Plaintiff also argues that the Court
lacks diversity jurisdiction because 28 U.S.C. §
1332's amount in controversy is not satisfied. The Court
finds it unnecessary to reach this argument. The Notice of
Removal does not allege that diversity jurisdiction is
satisfied, only federal question jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's argument is therefore misplaced.
 Jarrett-Cooper v. United Airlines,
Inc., 586 F. App'x 214, 215 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81, 83
Paul v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan
of Ohio, 701 F.3d 514, 518 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. ...