Weber v. U.S. Sterling Securities, Inc.
Decision Date | 19 June 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 17623.,17623. |
Citation | 924 A.2d 816,282 Conn. 722 |
Parties | Aharon WEBER v. U.S. STERLING SECURITIES, INC., et al. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Earle Giovanniello, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Todd Bank, Kew Gardens, NY, for the appellant (plaintiff).
Allen A. Currier, Danbury, for the appellees (defendants).
BORDEN, NORCOTT, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.
In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether liability attaches under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (act), 47 U.S.C. § 227, to individual members of a limited liability company who sent unsolicited facsimile (fax) advertisements within New York state. The plaintiff, Aharon Weber, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants Michelle Master Orr and Shawn Orr. The plaintiff contends that the trial court improperly concluded that the Orrs' membership in a Delaware limited liability company precludes their personal liability. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly rendered summary judgment based on its conclusion that New York Civil Law and Rules § 901(b) bars the plaintiff's class action claim and that New York General Business Law § 396-aa bars the plaintiff's individual action. We reverse in part and affirm in part the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history guide our resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff initially filed a complaint in the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield against U.S. Sterling Securities, Inc. (U.S. Sterling), a resident of Brooklyn, New York, doing business as U.S. Sterling Capital Corporation, and Michelle Master Orr and Shawn Orr, both doing business for Retail Relief, LLC (Retail Relief), alleging that they had sent a one page unsolicited fax advertisement to the plaintiff in violation of the act. The action subsequently was transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket in Stamford. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that Shawn Orr and U.S. Sterling sent a one page fax from Hauppauge, New York, to the plaintiff's residence in Brooklyn. The fax advertised the services of Retail Relief, a consulting firm that offers to help retail businesses negotiate gross margin agreements with vendors, that is, advises businesses on the correct price at which to sell their products in order to make a certain profit. Michelle Master Orr is identified in the advertisement as the firm's managing director; she and her husband, Shawn Orr, both reside in New Canaan, Connecticut.1
The plaintiff brought the present action both in his individual capacity and as a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who had received similar unsolicited fax advertisements.2 In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants sent the same unsolicited fax to 5000 class members. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), the plaintiff sought injunctive relief and alleged that according to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and (C), violation of the act entitled him and the other class members to statutory damages in the amount of $500 for each unsolicited fax received and treble damages for wilful or knowing violations of the act.
Thereafter, the defendants moved for summary judgment, alleging that: (1) they could not be found personally liable because they were acting on behalf of a Delaware limited liability company; (2) New York law applies to the facts of the case and New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 901(b) operates to bar the plaintiff from maintaining a class action lawsuit under the act; (3) even if § 901(b) does not preclude the present action, New York General Business Law § 396-aa bars the plaintiff's claim as it is pleaded in the complaint. The trial court granted the defendants' motion, finding that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to any of the plaintiff's allegations and that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.3 This appeal followed.4
A brief description of the act provides context for the plaintiff's allegations. First enacted in 1991 in response to consumer complaints regarding the growing number of unsolicited telemarketing calls and fax advertisements, the act was intended to "protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers by placing restrictions on unsolicited, automated telephone calls to the home and to facilitate interstate commerce by restricting certain uses of [fax] machines and automatic dialers." S.Rep. No. 102-178, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess. (1991), reprinted in 1991 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1968; see Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-243, § 2, 105 Stat. 2394. The act makes it unlawful "for any person within the United States . . . to use any telephone [fax] machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone [fax] machine . . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) (2000). An "unsolicited advertisement" is one that is "transmitted to any person without that person's prior express invitation or permission." 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4) (2000). The act creates a private right of action pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) (2000): Claims under the act sound in tort regardless of whether they are construed as property or invasion of privacy tort claims. See J2 Global Communications v. Vision Lab Telecommunications, United States District Court, Docket No. CV056348, *6 (C.D.Cal. May 9, 2006) (determining that ban against unsolicited faxes in act addresses both property and privacy torts); US Fax Law Center, Inc. v. iHire, Inc., 362 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1252 (D.Colo.2005) ( ). If a court finds that a defendant has "willfully or knowingly" violated the act, the court may award treble damages in the amount of $1500 per fax. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).
Before addressing the merits of the plaintiff's appeal, we set forth the applicable standard of review of a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Leisure Resort Technology, Inc. v. Trading Cove Associates, 277 Conn. 21, 30-31, 889 A.2d 785 (2006).
The plaintiff first claims that the trial court improperly concluded that the defendants cannot be held personally liable for sending unsolicited faxes on behalf of Retail Relief, a Delaware limited liability company. Specifically, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that § 18-303(a) of title 6 of the Delaware Code Annotated exempts members of a limited liability company from personal tort liability. We agree.
As a preliminary matter, we review some general principles governing limited liability companies. (Citation omitted.) Great Lakes Chemical Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 96 F. Sup.2d 376, 383 (D.Del.2000). The limited liability company thus shields owners and managers from personal liability for the debts and liabilities incurred by the limited liability company. 2 L. Ribstein & R. Keatinge, Limited Liability Companies (2005) § 12:1 p. 12-1. Much like the liability protection offered to shareholders in a corporation, members of a limited liability company have been traditionally exempt from liability based on their membership in a limited liability company while they remain personally liable for their individual conduct. Generally, Id., at § 12:4,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 08–1008.
...as a preliminary matter, whether a federal action under the act may be brought in state court." Weber v. U.S. Sterling Securities, Inc., 282 Conn. 722, 736, 924 A.2d 816, 826 (2007) (in TCPA action governed by New York substantive law, § 901(b) applied even though the claim was pursued in C......
-
Obg Technical v. Northrop Grumman Space & Mission
...accrues may be substantive in nature (which in this case, would mean that New York law would control). See Weber v. US. Sterling Secs., Inc., 282 Conn. 722, 739, 924 A.2d 816 (2007) ("[S]ubstantive law creates, defines and regulates rights while a procedural law prescribes the methods of en......
-
Mlc Mortg. Corp. v. Sun America Mortg. Co.
...Leadership Council of The United States, Inc. v. Investors' Alert, Inc., see note 15, infra. 9. Weber v. United States Sterling Securities, Inc., 282 Conn. 722, 727, 924 A.2d 816 (2007). 10. Title 47 U.S.C. 227(b), note 2, supra. Oklahoma's Attorney General may also enforce provisions of th......
-
Giovanniello v. ALM Media, LLC
...Connecticut, the parties do not question the application of that state's law to this case. See generally Weber v. U.S. Sterling Sec., Inc., 282 Conn. 722, 737, 924 A.2d 816, 827 (2007) (holding TCPA claim governed by law of state where injury occurred, i.e., where fax was received). Connect......
-
INTERPRETING STATE STATUTES IN FEDERAL COURT.
...inconsistency in judicial practices); Hart, supra note 148, at 1829-32 (same). (260) See, e.g., Weber v. U.S. Sterling Secs., Inc., 924 A2d 816, 823 n.5 (Conn. 2007) (holding that interpretive methods were "procedural" and so applying forum (261) Erbsen and Green endorse such a "horizontal ......
-
2007 Developments in Connecticut Business Entity Law
...of an alternative to dissolution and stayed the dissolution action until the determination of `fair value' had been resolved. 45. 282 Conn. 722 (2007). 46. The situation is similar to that of registered limited liability partnerships, see CONN. GEN. STAT. § 34-327, and professional service ......