Alert

New York District Court Rejects Arguments That TCPA Claims Are Non-Removable

December 20, 2024

On December 4, 2024, the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, as a matter of first impression, denied pro se plaintiff’s motion to remand claims against a national bank for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which arose from calls allegedly received by plaintiff after he registered his cellular phone with the national “Do Not Call Registry.”

Background

In Sandhu, plaintiff admitted to having a commercial banking relationship with defendant but asserted that the high volume of telephone calls caused significant disruption and distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. After defendant removed the action to federal court based upon both diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction, plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that his choice to commence the action in state court overrode the jurisdiction of the court based upon the alleged TCPA violations.   

Court’s Analysis and Decision

However, the court disagreed, noting that “when Congress wants to make federal claims instituted in state court nonremovable, it says just that.” The Sandhu court further found that “Congress did not make TCPA claims nonremovable.”  Additionally, the court specifically observed that “while neither party has cited a case in the Second Circuit addressing a motion to remand in the context of a TCPA claim, courts outside the Circuit have rejected arguments similar to the Plaintiff’s and denied motions to remand TCPA actions” since concurrent jurisdiction is neither a bar to removal nor grounds for remand when a federal statute does not expressly prohibit removal. Therefore, the court held that removal was proper based upon federal question jurisdiction as “absent an express provision to the contrary, the removal right should be respected when there is concurrent jurisdiction.”  

Key Takeaway

Sandhu underscores that TCPA claims are fundamentally removable and will not be remanded in the Second Circuit solely based upon the concurrency of state court jurisdiction over such claims.