District Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss in $10M Robocall Forfeiture Case
A U.S. District Court judge upheld a magistrate judge’s rejection of a motion to dismiss a DOJ case seeking to collect the nearly $10 million FCC forfeiture against robocaller Scott Rhodes of Libby, Montana, said an opinion in U.S. District…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Court in Montana last week. The FCC unanimously approved the penalty against Rhodes in 2021, over nearly 5,000 spoofed robocalls he made in 2018. DOJ brought a case seeking to enforce the penalty in October (see 2101140044). Magistrate Judge Kathleen DeSoto rejected arguments from Rhodes -- who is representing himself in the case -- that the forfeiture should be dismissed as violating the First and Eighth amendments, and that there wasn’t enough evidence for the FCC’s ruling. Judge Dana Christensen upheld the magistrate judge’s ruling that the district court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the constitutionality of FCC rules, only U.S. circuit courts of appeal do. The 9th and 6th appeals courts have taken different tacks on whether a district court has jurisdiction over the constitutionality of an FCC order in a forfeiture matter, but Christensen said the 6th Circuit’s reasoning that they do isn’t “compelling.” The 6th Circuit had ruled that the lack of jurisdiction would deny property owners the right to defend themselves, but Rhodes isn’t barred from challenging the facts behind the forfeiture order in district court, only its constitutionality, said Christensen. However, the opinion also rejected Rhodes’ arguments on the factual basis for the penalty. “Rhodes's arguments construe the intent requirement of the statute too narrowly,” wrote Christensen. “The Complaint has alleged sufficient facts from which the Court can reasonably infer that Rhodes acted with the intent to wrongfully obtain something of value, such as publicity for his website and political ideology.”