Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Enclarity Inc., et al. v. Matthew N. Fulton

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 17-1380 · judgment November 2, 2018

GVR'd · October 7, 2019

Pre-decision estimate: 12% cert probability (95% interval 7%–19%)

Before the decision, about 2.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below, and a business petitioner.

Question presented

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act regulates the sending of “unsolicited advertisement[s]” to fax machines. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). The statute defines “advertisement” as “any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services.” Id. § 227(a)(5). The question presented is: Whether faxes that only request information and propose no commercial transaction with recipients are “advertisements” under the TCPA.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Joseph Russell Palmore
Morrison & Foerster LLP

For respondent
Phillip A. Bock
Bock, Hatch & Oppenheim, LLC

Case

Subject area
Economic Activity (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Order
Order list, October 7, 2019 · Summary disposition

Proceedings

Nov 08 2019
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Oct 07 2019
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 588 U. S. ___ (2019).
Jul 03 2019
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
Jul 02 2019
Reply of petitioners Enclarity Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 13 2019
Brief of respondent Matthew N. Fulton in opposition filed.
May 14 2019
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
May 14 2019
Response Requested. (Due June 13, 2019)
Mar 27 2019
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 29, 2019)