Cheng v. Speier

Background

Clyde Cheng filed a proposed class action against Congresswoman Jackie Speier in both her official and individual capacities. Cheng alleged that between November 2020 and July 2021, he received four calls on his cellular phone using Speier’s prerecorded voice and inviting him to participate in town halls. He alleged that he had not consented to the calls and had tried to opt out, but the messages did not provide instructions for doing so. He later received another unsolicited call on December 15, 2021.

Cheng asserted one claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b), and two California unfair-competition claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs of California Business and Professions Code § 17200. He sought statutory damages and an injunction. Speier moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

TCPA Claim Against Speier in Her Official Capacity

The court held that sovereign immunity barred the TCPA claim against Speier in her official capacity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents lawsuits against the government unless Congress has clearly authorized the suit. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the United States and its agencies are not subject to the TCPA because no statute waives that immunity. It also concluded that the immunity extends to members of Congress acting in their official capacities.

The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the official-capacity TCPA claim on sovereign-immunity grounds.

TCPA Claim Against Speier in Her Individual Capacity

The court separately considered Cheng’s claim against Speier in her individual capacity. It examined whether the federal government was the real party in interest—that is, whether the requested relief would effectively operate against the government rather than against Speier personally.

The court concluded that the federal government was the real party in interest. It reasoned that Cheng did not dispute that constituent communications and town halls were part of Speier’s job duties, and he did not allege that the calls were made for a private purpose. The court further reasoned that the requested class-wide damages and injunction would affect how members of Congress communicate with constituents and how related funds are allocated.

The court held that sovereign immunity therefore barred the individual-capacity TCPA claim and dismissed it without leave to amend. Because of that ruling, the court did not address whether Speier was entitled to qualified immunity, a separate protection that can shield government officials from certain claims for damages.

California State-Law Claims

Because the court dismissed the federal TCPA claim, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California unfair-competition claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to decide related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court did not decide whether the state-law claims were properly asserted, whether the United States was properly substituted as a defendant on those claims, or whether the Federal Tort Claims Act or its exceptions applied.

Disposition

The court dismissed the TCPA cause of action without leave to amend and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining California state-law claims.