Case: 14-10872 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10872
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-01652-VMC-TBM
DOUGLAS B. STALLELY,
In his capacity as personal Representative
of the Estate of Gary Robertson,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
JEREMIAH HALLBACK,
Individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
versus
ADS ALLIANCE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 3, 2015)
Case: 14-10872 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 2 of 6
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Douglas Stalley, 1 as personal representative of the estate of Gary
Robertson, appeals the district court’s order 2 granting summary judgment in favor
of Defendant ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc. (“ADS”) in this action alleging
violations of the Florida Security of Communications Act (“FSCA”), Fla. Stat. §
934.01. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm. 3
Briefly stated, Plaintiff claims that ADS intercepted and recorded -- in
violation of the FSCA -- phone calls that ADS placed to Plaintiff’s Florida home
about certain credit-card accounts. It is ADS’s company policy to record all
incoming and outgoing calls between ADS employees and third-party account
1
On 23 October 2014, this Court dismissed this appeal by Plaintiff Jeremiah Hallback for want
of prosecution.
2
In his notice of appeal, Plaintiff purports to challenge several orders of the district court.
Because Plaintiff’s appellate briefs contain substantive argument only about the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to ADS, Plaintiff’s challenges to the district court’s remaining orders
are abandoned. See Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).
3
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence and
all reasonable factual inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Skop v.
City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir. 2007).
2
Case: 14-10872 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 3 of 6
holders. ADS records the calls using a digital recording system, or “logger”: a
separate piece of equipment connected to the telephone system. That ADS made
and recorded several outgoing calls to Plaintiff in accordance with its company
policy (and without Plaintiff’s consent) is undisputed.
The FSCA prohibits the interception of wire, oral, or electronic
communication. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(1). The term “intercept” is defined as “the
aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral
communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.”
Id. § 934.02(3). The phrase “electronic, mechanical, or other device” includes
“any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral
communication.” Id. § 934.02(4). But, under what is known as the “business
extension exception,” the term “electronic, mechanical, or other device” does not
include telephone equipment that is “[f]urnished to the subscriber or user by a
provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of
business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its
business.” See Fla. Stat. § 934.02(4)(a)(1).
In granting summary judgment in favor of ADS, the district court relied on
this Court’s decision in Royal Health Care Serv., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins.
Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991). In Royal Health -- as in this case -- plaintiff
3
Case: 14-10872 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 4 of 6
alleged a violation of the FSCA based on defendant’s automatic recording of
outgoing calls to plaintiff, without plaintiff’s consent. Royal Health Care Serv.,
Inc., 924 F.2d at 216. The Royal Health defendant asserted that its conduct fell
under the FSCA’s business-extension exception and, thus, no “interception”
occurred under the Act. Id.
To determine whether the business-extension exception applied, this Court
first considered whether the alleged interception was made by the telephone
extension used to make the calls or by the tape recorder used to record the calls.
Id. at 217. Based both on Florida case law and on Circuit precedent interpreting
the Federal Wiretap Act (upon which the FSCA is modeled), this Court concluded
that the calls were intercepted (under that term’s common meaning) by the
telephone extension, not the recording device. Id. at 217-18. Because (1) the
telephone used was supplied by a provider of wire or electronic communication
service in the ordinary course of its business, and (2) the calls were recorded
pursuant to defendant’s company policy in the ordinary course of business, the
business-extension exception applied. Id. Thus, no “interception” within the
meaning of the FSCA occurred; and defendant was entitled to summary judgment.
Id. at 218.
4
Case: 14-10872 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 5 of 6
The parties agree that the facts in Royal Health are materially
indistinguishable from the facts in this appeal. So, Royal Health controls.
Applying this Court’s binding precedent in Royal Health, the district court
concluded correctly that it was the telephone, not the “logger,” that intercepted
(under that term’s common meaning) the calls from ADS to Plaintiff. Because the
telephone was supplied by a provider of wire or electronic communication services
in the ordinary course of business, and because ADS recorded the calls pursuant to
its company policy, we conclude that the business-extension exception applied and
that no “interception” occurred within the meaning of the FSCA. Accordingly,
ADS is entitled to summary judgment.
On appeal, Plaintiff asks the Court to certify questions to the Florida
Supreme Court about the proper application of the FSCA. 4 Plaintiff contends that
since Royal Health was decided, five other federal circuit courts (interpreting the
Federal Wiretap Act) and various non-Florida state courts (interpreting analogous
state statutes) have -- contrary to the reasoning in Royal Health -- concluded that a
telephone call is “intercepted” for purposes of the pertinent federal and state
statutes by the recording device, not the telephone. Plaintiff contends that these
intervening foreign decisions cast sufficient doubt on this Court’s earlier
4
In the alternative, Plaintiff urges the Court to review en banc its decision in Royal Health.
Because the determinative issue in this appeal is one of state law, en banc consideration is
inappropriate. See 11th Cir. R. 35-3.
5
Case: 14-10872 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 6 of 6
interpretation of Florida law that certification to the Florida Supreme Court is
warranted.
Under our prior-precedent rule, we are bound by an earlier panel’s decision
(including those involving federal or state law) unless it is overruled by this Court
sitting en banc or “if subsequent decisions of the United States Supreme Court or
the Florida courts cast doubt on our interpretation of state law.” Venn v. St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 1058, 1066 (11th Cir. 1996) (emphasis in
original). Plaintiff cites no intervening decision (nor have we found such a
decision) of the United States Supreme Court or of the Florida courts that calls into
question our interpretation of the FSCA’s business-extension exception in Royal
Health. Thus, Royal Health remains binding precedent. Nothing establishes that
the law of Florida is unclear or that the Florida Supreme Court would likely decide
the issue differently; certification is unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
6