ÿWPC= fžVåBÈÌßöN¬†y²pƨ";ñcGÊß?òp/›¸ÊîU,ìUøš²¡TOÓl“»]I_{+ô›¿T'ߘ${÷Œñ0Ç:ŸX!Ý6'Ž}Já£c*c[FxWÜ™áöʳ/Þe(LÂë£#¤!¥ôù°j)̪ÜϤ\Òß·íæ–©ÆZ] ñ=²3êåðçŒùzU‹‰gQRå w¢ŠŠÖçvmúÃðDŸ³"î‘â'nüÓëDDÎÔë¾8!Be}ÄÛˆÅqì]a÷\‘‰šÙ/ÝÜÐ9¨!d0×GT”±=I;Ò©¨NÝ\8ó¨ñê³Îå úZ²t)”E6@Ù0¥EËi̯‰B˜Ê"¼‹v°æá–"åÃÕŒðC°êµL÷J”ät'~ÿŒú¾U ÎL­‡c‘š‹äc9,AÂÝía8ò•£]\+Aiz÷9TÃ+ò’ÂŒpúùOœ\¾Šo²ãt™¨Ú’,/¨Æˆ"ö –þµŒ6ºôX™]_DâÏ%ì“’¤ò»<€ªfÊ–­âQ„Lq-ã#]m|n5ø»™D˜Ï¸‹@–í{³»'­ =m¶š«Ô~Â4ˆ)Ç&äBÑ䛸y lk‹È³ØÙ‡ë4ÂÛaNmˆÐat£ÿ #ÉšUNc %± 0:·^ ñwý4$ m&˜Kyocera Mita KM-2050 KXÆÊÆÊÊÆÆÊ0(LÀÄ  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,ÔõK<– ‡;ichael3|x ÿU‹ÿÿÿÿÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑX°ÑÑX°ÑòòÓ  ÓWorsham€v.€Fairfield€Resorts,€Inc.óó,€No.€1058,€September€Term,€2007€(Md.€App.€9/30/2009)Ð X Ð(Md.€App.,€2009)Ð >æ ÐÌò òPage€1ó óÐ  ² ÐÌPAUL€F.€WORSHAMÐ Ö~ Ðv.Ð ¼d ÐFAIRFIELD€RESORTS,€INC.Ð ¢J ÐÌNo.€1058,€September€Term,€2007.Ð n   ÐÌCourt€of€Special€Appeals€of€Maryland.Ð : â  ÐÌFiled:€September€30,€2009.Ð ®  ÐÓ\ÓÌ€€€€€€€€Hollander,€Meredith,€Ô_ÔThiemeÔ_Ô,€Raymond€G.,€Jr.€(Retired,€specially€assigned),€JJ.Ð Òz  ÐÌò ò€€€€€€€€Opinion€by€MEREDITH,€J.ó óÐ žF ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€question€presented€by€this€appeal€is€whether€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€for€aÐ j Ðclaim€filed€in€Maryland€pursuant€to€the€federal€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act€of€1991Ð Pø Ð("TCPA")€is€four€years€ð"ð€based€upon€the€federal€"catch€all"€limitation€period€set€forth€in€28Ð 6Þ ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1658(a)€ð"ð€or€three€years€ð"ð€based€upon€the€Maryland€general€civil€limitation€period€setÐ Ä Ðforth€in€Maryland€Code€(1974,€2006€Repl.€Vol.),€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€ArticleÐ ª Ð("Ô_ÔCJPÔ_Ô"),€ðð€5-101.€We€conclude€that€the€four€year€limitation€period€imposed€by€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ è Ð1658(a)€applies€to€the€present€action.Ð Îv ÐÌò òFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óÐ šB ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€appellant€in€this€case€is€Paul€Worsham.€On€February€26,€2007,€Worsham€filed€aÐ f Ðcomplaint€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Montgomery€County,€alleging€that€he€had€received€a€telephoneÐ Lô Ðsolicitor's€call€that€violated€the€federal€TCPA.€Worsham€alleged€that€a€company€usingÐ 2Ú Ðtelemarketing€to€promote€its€services€ð"ð€Fairfield€Resorts,€Inc.,€appellee€ð"ð€had€unlawfully€calledÐ À  ÐWorsham's€residential€telephone€number€on€February€28,€2003,€using€automated€dialingÐ þ¦! Ðequipment.€Worsham's€complaint€further€alleged€that€the€telemarketer€delivered€a€prerecordedÐ ä Œ" Ðsolicitation€that€failed€to€provide€the€true€name€of€the€individual€caller€and€other€requiredÐ Ê!r# Ðinformation.€Worsham€asserted€that€he€did€not€give€Fairfield€his€consent€to€receive€suchÐ °"X $ Ðtelephone€calls.Ð –#>!% ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€content€of€the€prerecorded€message€was:Ð b% #' ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Page€with€the€Fairfield€Resorts€in€Alexandria,€Virginia.€We're€inviting€people€in€your€areaÐ .'Ö$) Ðto€the€open€house€of€our€luxurious€resort,€and€just€for€taking€a€short€90€minute€tour,€you'll€receiveÐ (¼%* Ða€certificate€good€for€four€hotel€getaways,Ð ú(¢&+ ÐÌò òPage€2ó óÐ Æ*n(- ÐÌincluding€dinner,€and€spending€money.€For€more€details,€call€our€representatives€atÐ ’,:*/ Ð1-800-249-0214,€and€please€mention€offer€300.€Thanks.Ð x- +0 ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Worsham's€complaint€alleged€that€the€call€violated€the€provision€of€the€TCPA€set€forth€in€47Ð D/ì,2 ÐU.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(1)(B),€prohibiting,€in€Worsham's€words,€the€initiation€of€"any€telephone€call€toÐ *0Ò-3 Ðany€residential€line€using€an€artificial€or€prerecorded€voice€to€deliver€a€message€without€the€priorÐ X Ðexpress€consent€of€the€called€party."€Further,€Worsham€alleged€that€the€message€violated€47Ð >æ ÐÔ_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ðð€64.1200(e)(2)(iv)€by€failing€to€provide€the€name€of€the€individual€caller,€the€name€of€theÐ $Ì Ðperson€on€whose€behalf€the€call€was€being€made,€and€the€telephone€number€or€address€at€whichÐ  ² Ðthe€responsible€party€could€be€contacted.€Pursuant€to€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3),€Worsham€claimedÐ ð˜ Ðdamages€of€$500€for€each€violation€of€the€TCPA,€which€he€asked€to€be€trebled€because€theÐ Ö~ Ðviolations€were€committed€willfully€or€knowingly.€Worsham€also€sought:Ð ¼d ÐÌ€€€€€€€€[Ô_Ôa]nÔ_Ô€injunction€prohibiting€the€Defendants€.€.€.€from€initiating€telephone€calls€to€anyÐ ˆ 0 Ðresidential€line€using€a€prerecorded€voice€to€deliver€a€message€without€the€prior€expressÐ n   Ðinvitation,€permission€or€consent€of€the€called€party,€or€without€providing€the€name€of€theÐ T ü  Ðindividual€caller,€the€name€of€the€person€on€whose€behalf€the€call€is€being€made,€and/or€aÐ : â  Ðtelephone€number€or€address€at€which€the€person€or€entity€may€be€contacted.Ð  È  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Fairfield€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€complaint€pursuant€to€Maryland€Rule€2-322(b)(2).Ð ì”  ÐFairfield€asserted€that€all€claims€were€barred€by€the€three-year€statute€of€limitations€set€forth€inÐ Òz  ÐÔ_ÔCJPÔ_Ô€ðð€5-101.€Fairfield€also€asserted€that€the€TCPA€provided€no€private€cause€of€action€for€theÐ ¸` Ðalleged€violation€of€47€Ô_ÔC.F.R.Ô_Ô€ðð€64.1200(e)(2)(iv)€because€that€regulation€was€promulgatedÐ žF Ðpursuant€to€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(d),€and€that€section€of€the€TCPAÐ „, ÐÌò òPage€3ó óÐ Pø ÐÌdoes€not€provide€for€a€private€cause€of€action€to€redress€violations.€Cf.€Worsham€v.€Ehrlich,€181Ð Ä ÐMd.€App.€711,€729€(2008)€(concluding€that€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(d)€"does€not€provide€for€a€privateÐ ª Ðright€of€action").Ð è ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Worsham€responded€and€argued€that€the€suit€was€timely€filed,€asserting:Ð ´\ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€statute€of€limitations€for€violations€of€the€federal€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act,Ð €( Ð47€U.S.C.€ðð€227€is€governed€by€the€four€year€limitations€period€established€by€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658.Ð f ÐUnless€specified€otherwise,€when€a€cause€of€action€is€created€by€a€federal€statute€enacted€afterÐ Lô ÐDecember€1,€1990,€the€limitations€period€is€four€years.€Jones€v.€R.R.€Ô_ÔDonnellyÔ_Ô€&€Sons€Co.,€541Ð 2Ú ÐU.S.€369,€382€(2004).Ð À  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€After€a€hearing,€the€circuit€court€granted€Fairfield's€motion€to€dismiss€the€claims€against€itÐ ä Œ" Ðwith€prejudice€"on€the€grounds€that€such€claims€are€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations."€ThisÐ Ê!r# Ðappeal€followed.1Ð °"X $ ÐÌò òAnalysisó óÐ |$$"& ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Because€the€sole€basis€upon€which€the€circuit€court€dismissed€Worsham's€claims€was€theÐ H&ð#( Ðapplication€of€the€Maryland€statute€of€limitations,€we€shall€limit€our€discussion€to€whether€theÐ .'Ö$) Ðcourt€correctly€determined€that€the€four-year€statute€of€limitations€established€by€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ (¼%* Ð1658(a)€is€not€applicable€to€private€actions€filed€pursuant€to€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3).Ð ú(¢&+ ÐÌò òPage€4ó óÐ Æ*n(- ÐÌThe€most€pertinent€provisions€of€the€TCPA€are€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(1)(B),€prohibiting€calls€to€aÐ ’,:*/ Ðresidential€telephone€line€by€use€of€any€prerecorded€voice,€and€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3),€providingÐ x- +0 Ðfor€a€private€cause€of€action€for€a€violation€of€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b).Ð ^.,1 ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€first,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(1)(B),€states:Ð *0Ò-3 Ї€€€€€€€€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227.€Restrictions€on€use€of€telephone€equipment.Ð X ÐÌ*€*€*Ð $Ì ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(b)€Restrictions€on€use€of€automated€telephone€equipment.Ð ð˜ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(1)€Prohibitions.€It€shall€be€unlawful€for€any€person€within€the€United€States,€or€any€personÐ ¼d Ðoutside€the€United€States€if€the€recipient€is€within€the€United€States€ð"ðÐ ¢J ÐÌ*€*€*Ð n   ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(B)€to€initiate€any€telephone€call€to€any€residential€telephone€line€using€an€artificial€orÐ : â  Ðprerecorded€voice€to€deliver€a€message€without€the€prior€express€consent€of€the€called€party,Ð  È  Ðunless€the€call€is€initiated€for€emergency€purposes€or€is€exempted€by€rule€or€order€by€the€[FederalÐ ®  ÐCommunications]€Commission€under€paragraph€(2)(B);€.€.€.€.2Ð ì”  ÐÌò òPage€5ó óÐ ¸` ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€second€pertinent€provision,€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3),€states:Ð „, ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(3)€Private€right€of€action.€A€person€or€entity€may,€if€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€orÐ Pø Ðrules€of€court€of€a€State,€bring€in€an€appropriate€court€of€that€State€ð"ðÐ 6Þ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(A)€an€action€based€on€a€violation€of€this€subsection€or€the€regulations€prescribed€under€thisÐ ª Ðsubsection€to€enjoin€such€violation,Ð è ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(B)€an€action€to€recover€for€actual€monetary€loss€from€such€a€violation,€or€to€receive€$500€inÐ ´\ Ðdamages€for€each€such€violation,€whichever€is€greater,€orÐ šB ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(C)€both€such€actions.Ð f ÐÌ€€€€€€€€If€the€court€finds€that€the€defendant€willfully€or€knowingly€violated€this€subsection€or€theÐ 2Ú Ðregulations€prescribed€under€this€subsection,€the€court€may,€in€its€dÔ_ÔiscretionÔ_Ô,€increase€the€amountÐ À  Ðof€the€award€to€an€amount€equal€to€not€more€than€3€times€the€amount€available€underÐ þ¦! Ðsubparagraph€(B)€of€this€paragraph.Ð ä Œ" ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Accordingly,€the€TCPA€prohibits€the€commercial€use€of€prerecorded€telephone€messages€inÐ °"X $ Ðcalls€placed€to€residential€telephone€lines,€subject€to€certain€exemptions.€Further,€the€TCPAÐ –#>!% Ðprovides€for€pursuit€of€a€private€cause€of€action€in€State€court€seeking€an€injunction€or€damagesÐ |$$"& Ðor€both.Ð b% #' ÐÌ€€€€€€€€At€first€blush,€Congress's€statutory€scheme€of€creating€a€private€cause€of€action€for€violationÐ .'Ö$) Ðof€a€federal€law,€but€requiring€that€such€private€cause€of€action€be€pursued€only€in€state€courts,Ð (¼%* Ðseems€like€an€oddity.€But,€as€Judge€John€C.€Ô_ÔEldridgeÔ_Ô€explained,€writing€for€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ ú(¢&+ Ðin€Levitt€v.€Ô_ÔFax.comÔ_Ô,€Inc.,€383€Md.€141€(2004)€ð"ð€a€case€involving€the€TCPA's€prohibition€onÐ à)ˆ', Ðsending€unsolicited€advertisements€via€fax€ð"ð€the€concept€is€not€new€even€though€it€may€haveÐ Æ*n(- Ðfallen€into€disuse€in€recent€times.€Noting€that€"the€United€States€Constitution€established€onlyÐ ¬+T). Ðone€federal€court,€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States,€andÐ ’,:*/ ÐÌò òPage€6ó óÐ ^.,1 ÐÌ[that]€its€jurisdiction€is€almost€entirely€appellate,"€id.€at€148,€Judge€Ô_ÔEldridgeÔ_Ô€observed:€"IfÐ *0Ò-3 ÐCongress€had€chosen€the€constitutional€option€of€not€creating€federal€trial€courts,€jurisdictionÐ X Ðover€virtually€all€federal€causes€of€action€would€have€been€exclusively€in€state€trial€courts."€Id.€atÐ >æ Ð148-49.€And,€"even€though€Congress€did€choose€to€create€federal€trial€courts,€it€did€not€vest€themÐ $Ì Ðwith€general€federal€question€jurisdiction€until€1875."€Id.€at€149.Ð  ² ÐÌ€€€€€€€€In€Ponte€v.€Investors'€Alert,€382€Md.€689€(2004),€the€Court€of€Appeals€reviewed€a€claimÐ Ö~ Ðbased€upon€the€TCPA€and€confirmed€that€a€private€cause€of€action€seeking€damages€pursuant€toÐ ¼d Ð47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3)€could€be€prosecuted€in€the€courts€of€this€State.€The€Court€of€AppealsÐ ¢J Ðstated:€"The€issue€in€this€case€concerns€the€Congressional€intent€underlying€the€phrase€`ifÐ ˆ 0 Ðotherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rules€of€court€of€a€State,'€along€with€the€relationship€betweenÐ n   Ðthe€language€of€the€federal€statute€and€state€law."€Id.€at€703.€Reviewing€the€legislative€history€ofÐ T ü  Ðthe€TCPA,€the€Court€of€Appeals€stated,€id.€at€707:Ð : â  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Congress€enacted€the€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act€in€November€1991,€and€it€wasÐ ®  Ðsigned€into€law€in€December€of€that€year.€The€purpose€of€the€Act€was€to€address€telemarketingÐ ì”  Ðpractices€that€were€made€possible€by€technological€changes€that€resulted,€inter€alia,€in€aÐ Òz  Ðsubstantial€increase€in€unsolicited€commercial€telephone€calls€and€faxes,€and€the€resultingÐ ¸` Ðexpense€and€disruption€imposed€on€the€recipients.€At€that€point€in€time,€some€states€had€begun€toÐ žF Ðtake€action€to€restrict€such€telemarketing€practices.€.€.€.€State€laws,€however,€had€limited€effectÐ „, Ðbecause€states€did€not€have€jurisdiction€over€interstate€calls.€The€federal€law€was€primarilyÐ j Ðintended€to€reach€unsolicited€facsimile€and€other€telephone€communications€that€crossed€stateÐ Pø Ðlines,€and€fell€outside€the€jurisdiction€of€the€states.Ð 6Þ ÐÌò òPage€7ó óÐ ª ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€scant€legislative€history€relative€to€the€private€cause€of€action€authorized€by€47€U.S.C.€ððÐ Îv Ð227(b)(3)€was€summarized€by€the€Court€of€Appeals€in€Ponte€as€follows,€id.€at€709-11:Ð ´\ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€In€introducing€the€"amendment"€or€"substitute€bill"€containing€the€private€cause€of€actionÐ €( Ðcodified€as€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3),€Senator€Hollings€initially€set€forth€some€of€the€background€forÐ f Ðthe€provision€(137€Cong.€Rec.€30821[-30822]):Ð Lô ÐÌ€€€€€€€€"The€telemarketing€industry€appears€oblivious€to€the€harm€it€is€creating.€Two€months€ago,€aÐ À  Ðrepresentative€of€the€Direct€Marketing€Association€said€on€television€that€Ô_ÔtelemarketersÔ_Ô€have€aÐ þ¦! Ðright€to€call€us€in€our€homes.€This€is€absurd.€I€echo€Supreme€Court€Justice€Louis€Ô_ÔBrandeisÔ_Ô,€whoÐ ä Œ" Ðwrote€100€years€ago€that€`the€right€to€be€left€alone€is€the€most€comprehensive€of€rights€and€theÐ Ê!r# Ðone€most€valued€by€civilized€man.'"Ð °"X $ ÐÌ*€*€*Ð |$$"& ÐÌ€€€€€€€€"The€substitute€bill€contains€a€private€right-of-action€provision€that€will€make€it€easier€forÐ H&ð#( Ðconsumers€to€recover€damages€from€receiving€these€computerized€calls.€The€provision€wouldÐ .'Ö$) Ðallow€consumers€to€bring€an€action€in€State€court€against€any€entity€that€violates€the€bill.€The€billÐ (¼%* Ðdoes€not,€because€of€constitutional€constraints,€dictate€to€the€States€which€court€in€each€StateÐ ú(¢&+ Ðshall€be€the€proper€venue€for€such€an€action,€as€this€is€a€matter€for€State€legislators€to€determine.Ð à)ˆ', ÐNevertheless,€it€is€my€hope€that€States€will€make€it€as€easy€as€possible€for€consumers€to€bringÐ Æ*n(- Ðsuch€actions,€preferably€in€small€claims€court.€The€consumer€outrage€at€receiving€these€calls€isÐ ¬+T). Ðclear.€Unless€Congress€makes€it€easier€for€consumers€to€obtain€damages€from€those€who€violateÐ ’,:*/ Ðthis€bill,€these€abuses€will€undoubtedly€continue.Ð x- +0 ÐÌ€€€€€€€€"Small€claims€court€or€a€similar€court€would€allow€the€consumer€to€appear€before€the€courtÐ D/ì,2 Ðwithout€an€attorney.€The€amount€of€damages€in€this€legislation€is€set€to€be€fair€to€both€theÐ *0Ò-3 Ðconsumer€and€the€telemarketer.€However,€it€would€defeat€the€purposes€of€the€bill€if€the€attorneys'Ð X Ðcosts€to€consumers€ofÐ >æ ÐÌò òPage€8ó óÐ  ² ÐÌbringing€an€action€were€greater€than€the€potential€damages.€I€thus€expect€that€the€States€will€actÐ Ö~ Ðreasonably€in€permitting€their€citizens€to€go€to€court€to€enforce€this€bill."Ð ¼d ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€above-quoted€statements€by€Senator€Hollings€contain€essentially€the€whole€legislativeÐ ˆ 0 Ðhistory€underlying€the€private€cause€of€action€provision€in€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3).Ð n   ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(Emphasis€added€by€Court€of€Appeals€in€Ponte.)Ð : â  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Based€upon€the€legislative€history,€the€Court€of€Appeals€concluded€that€the€language€in€theÐ ®  ÐTCPA€that€was€deferential€to€the€individual€states€ð"ð€"if€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rulesÐ ì”  Ðof€court€of€a€State"€ð"ð€was€intended€to€avoid€dictating€"which€court€in€a€particular€state€hadÐ Òz  Ðjurisdiction€over€the€cause€of€action.€What€was€left€for€the€determination€of€state€legislators€wasÐ ¸` Ðthe€`proper€venue.'"€Id.€at€711.€Accordingly,€the€Court€of€Appeals€rejected€arguments€thatÐ žF Ðindividual€states€could€decide€that€private€causes€of€action€for€TCPA€violations€could€not€beÐ „, Ðpursued€in€any€of€their€courts,€stating,€id.€at€711-12:Ð j ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€substantive€issue€of€whether€the€federal€cause€of€action€should€be€entertained€in€theÐ 6Þ Ðappropriate€state€court€was€not€a€matter€left€to€state€legislators.€While€leaving€to€the€states€theÐ Ä Ðdetermination€of€"the€proper€venue,"€the€sponsor€of€the€federal€statute€hoped€that€stateÐ ª Ðlegislatures€would€allow€injured€consumers€to€bring€the€actions€in€small€claims€or€similar€courtsÐ è Ðrather€than€in€superior€courts€of€general€jurisdiction€with€their€higher€costs€and€substantialÐ Îv Ðattorneys'€fees.Ð ´\ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Accord€Robert€R.€Ô_ÔBiggerstaffÔ_Ô,€State€Courts€and€the€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act€ofÐ €( Ð1991:€Must€States€Opt-In?€Can€States€Opt-Out?,€33€CONN.€L.€REV.€407,€408€(2001).Ð f ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€Ponte€Court€rejected€the€argument€that€the€phrase€"if€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€orÐ 2Ú Ðrules€of€court€of€a€State"€should€be€interpreted€to€make€the€private€cause€of€actionÐ À  ÐÌò òPage€9ó óÐ ä Œ" ÐÌconditional€upon€legislative€enactments€in€the€individual€states,€observing:€"[Ô_ÔP]articularlyÔ_Ô€in€lightÐ °"X $ Ðof€Senator€Hollings's€explanation,€it€seems€clear€that€the€word€`laws'€covered€matters€such€as€theÐ –#>!% Ðmonetary€jurisdiction€of€state€courts€and€procedure€in€those€courts."€382€Md.€at€713.Ð |$$"& ÐEmphasizing€its€view€that€the€phrase€was€intended€to€allow€for€variations€among€the€states€in€theÐ b% #' Ðstructure€of€their€court€systems,€the€Court€of€Appeals€noted,€id.€at€712:Ð H&ð#( ÐÌ€€€€€€€€[Ô_ÔW]ithÔ_Ô€respect€to€both€the€federal€government€and€the€states,€the€monetary€jurisdiction€ofÐ (¼%* Ðdifferent€courts€is€determined€by€statutes€enacted€by€legislative€bodies.€The€same€is€true,€subjectÐ ú(¢&+ Ðto€state€constitutional€requirements,€concerning€the€general€types€of€actions€that€may€be€broughtÐ à)ˆ', Ðin€particular€courts,€the€nature€of€the€relief€available€in€different€courts,€the€availability€of€juryÐ Æ*n(- Ðtrials€in€some€courts€but€not€in€others,€etc.Ð ¬+T). ÐÌ€€€€€€€€To€similar€effect,€the€Court€stated,€id.€at€715:€In€light€of€the€sponsor's€concern€over€theÐ x- +0 Ð"proper€venue"€for€actions€under€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3),€and€his€deference€to€state€legislatorsÐ ^.,1 Ðconcerning€the€proper€venue€and€procedure€for€the€federal€cause€of€action,€the€reference€to€stateÐ D/ì,2 Ð"laws€or€rules€of€court"€is€understandable.Ð *0Ò-3 Ї€€€€€€€€In€the€concluding€paragraph€of€the€Ponte€opinion,€the€Court€stated,€id.€at€719:Ð X ÐÌ€€€€€€€€We€hold,€therefore,€that€Maryland€trial€courts€have€jurisdiction€over€the€private€cause€ofÐ $Ì Ðaction€created€by€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3).€Whether€a€particular€case€under€ðð€227(b)(3)€should€beÐ  ² Ðbrought€in€a€circuit€court€or€the€District€Court€of€Maryland€will€depend€upon€the€amount€ofÐ ð˜ Ðmoney€involved€and€the€monetary€jurisdictional€provisions,€for€civil€actions€at€law€for€moneyÐ Ö~ Ðdamages,€set€forth€in€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€Article€of€the€Maryland€Code.Ð ¼d ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€Court€of€Appeals€did€not€have€occasion€in€Ponte€to€address€the€statute€of€limitationsÐ ˆ 0 Ðthat€would€apply€to€a€private€cause€of€action€asserted€under€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3).€But€we€viewÐ n   Ðthe€Ponte€Court's€discussion€of€the€legislative€history€of€the€TCPA€as€supportÐ T ü  ÐÌò òPage€10ó óÐ  È  ÐÌfor€our€conclusion€that€the€federal€"catch€all"€limitation€statute€ð"ð€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658(a)€ð"ðÐ ì”  Ðcontrols.Ð Òz  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€federal€statute€of€limitations€was€enacted€by€Congress€on€December€1,€1990,€just€a€fewÐ žF Ðmonths€before€Congress€enacted€the€TCPA.€Section€1628€provides:€"Except€as€otherwiseÐ „, Ðprovided€by€law,€a€civil€action€arising€under€an€Act€of€Congress,€enacted€after€the€date€of€theÐ j Ðenactment€of€this€section€may€not€be€commenced€later€than€4€years€after€the€cause€of€actionÐ Pø Ðaccrues."€(In€2002,€this€language€was€designated€ðð€1658(a),€without€any€change€in€wording.)Ð 6Þ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Two€arguments€have€been€advanced€for€applying€the€state€statute€of€limitations€rather€thanÐ ª Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658(a).€One€argument€is€that€Congress's€inclusion€in€the€TCPA€of€the€phrase€"ifÐ è Ðotherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rules€of€court€of€a€State"€directs€the€state€courts€to€apply€stateÐ Îv Ðstatutes€of€limitations.€The€second€argument€is€that€the€private€cause€of€action€authorized€by€47Ð ´\ ÐU.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3)€does€not€"arise€under€an€Act€of€Congress"€because€such€a€private€claim€canÐ šB Ðonly€be€asserted€in€a€state€court€"if€otherwise€permitted€by€the€laws€or€rules€of€court€of€a€State."Ð €( ÐIn€our€view,€the€legislative€history€of€the€TCPA,€as€set€forth€in€detail€and€analyzed€by€the€CourtÐ f Ðof€Appeals€in€Ponte,€supports€neither€of€these€arguments.€Nor€does€the€legislative€history€of€28Ð Lô ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1658.Ð 2Ú ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€history€leading€up€to€the€enactment€of€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658€was€reviewed€in€detail€by€theÐ þ¦! ÐUnited€States€Supreme€Court€in€Jones€v.€R.R.€Ô_ÔDonnelleyÔ_Ô€&€Sons€Co.,€541€U.S.€369,€377-80Ð ä Œ" Ð(2004),€as€follows:Ð Ê!r# ÐÌò òPage€11ó óÐ –#>!% ÐÌÓ  Ó€€€€€€€€In€Board€of€Regents€of€Univ.€of€State€of€N.Y.€v.€Ô_ÔTomanioÔ_Ô,€446€U.S.€478,€483€(1980),€weÐ b% #' Ðobserved€that€Congress'€failure€to€enact€a€uniform€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€federal€causesÐ H&ð#( Ðof€action€created€a€"void€which€is€commonplace€in€federal€statutory€law."€Over€the€years€that€voidÐ .'Ö$) Ðhas€spawned€a€vast€amount€of€litigation.€Prior€to€the€enactment€of€ðð€1658,€the€"settled€practice€wasÐ (¼%* Ðto€adopt€a€local€time€limitation€as€federal€law€if€it€[was]€not€inconsistent€with€federal€law€or€policyÐ ú(¢&+ Ðto€do€so."€Wilson€v.€Garcia,€471€U.S.€261,€266-67€(1985).€Such€"[Ô_Ôl]imitationÔ_Ô€borrowing,"€Board€ofÐ à)ˆ', ÐRegents€v.€Tomanio,446€U.S.,€at€484,€generated€a€host€of€issues€that€required€resolution€on€aÐ Æ*n(- Ðstatute-by-statute€basis.€For€example,€it€often€was€difficult€to€determine€which€of€the€forum€State'sÐ ¬+T). Ðstatutes€of€limitations€was€the€most€appropriate€to€apply€to€the€federal€claim.€We€wrestled€with€thatÐ ’,:*/ Ðissue€in€Wilson€v.€Garcia,€in€which€we€considered€which€state€statute€provided€the€most€appropriateÐ x- +0 Ðlimitations€principle€for€claims€arising€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.€471€U.S.,€at€268,€276-279€(resolvingÐ ^.,1 Ðsplit€of€authority€over€whether€the€closest€state€analogue€to€an€action€brought€under€ðð€1983€was€anÐ D/ì,2 Ðaction€for€Ô_ÔtortiousÔ_Ô€injury€to€the€rights€of€another,€an€action€on€an€unwritten€contract,€or€an€action€forÐ *0Ò-3 Ða€liability€on€a€statute).€Before€reaching€that€question,€however,€we€first€had€to€determine€whetherÐ X Ðthe€characterization€of€a€ðð€1983€claim€for€statute€of€limitations€purposes€was€an€issue€of€state€orÐ >æ Ðfederal€law€and€whether€all€such€claims€should€be€characterized€in€the€same€way.€Ibid.€Two€yearsÐ $Ì Ðlater,€in€Goodman€v.€Ô_ÔLukensÔ_Ô€Steel€Co.,€we€answered€the€same€three€questions€for€claims€arisingÐ  ² Ðunder€ðð€1981.€482€U.S.,€at€660,€661-662.€Both€decisions€provoked€dissent€and€further€litigation.Ð ð˜ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€practice€of€borrowing€state€statutes€of€limitations€also€forced€courts€to€address€theÐ ¼d Ð"frequently€present€problem€of€a€conflict€of€laws€in€determining€which€State€statute€[was]Ð ¢J Ðcontrolling,€the€law€of€the€forum€or€that€of€the€situs€of€the€injury."€S.€Rep.€No.€619,€84th€Cong.,€1stÐ ˆ 0 ÐSess.,€4-6€(1955)€(discussing€problems€caused€by€borrowing€state€statutes€of€limitations€for€antitrustÐ n   Ðclaims).€Even€when€courts€were€able€to€identify€the€appropriate€state€statute,€limitations€borrowingÐ T ü  Ðresulted€in€uncertainty€for€both€plaintiffs€and€defendants,€as€a€plaintiff€alleging€a€federal€claim€inÐ : â  ÐState€A€would€find€herself€barred€by€the€local€statute€of€limitations€while€a€plaintiff€raising€preciselyÐ  È  Ðthe€same€claim€in€State€B€would€be€permitted€to€proceed.€Ibid.€Interstate€variances€of€that€sort€couldÐ ®  Ðbe€especially€confounding€in€class€actions€because€they€often€posed€problems€for€joint€resolution.Ð ì”  ÐSee€Memorandum€from€R.€Marcus,€Assoc.€Reporter€to€Workload€Subcommittee€(Sept.€1,€1989),Ð Òz  Ðreprinted€in€App.€to€Vol.€1€Federal€Courts€Study€Committee,€Working€Papers€and€SubcommitteeÐ ¸` ÐReports€(1990),€Doc.€No.€5,€p.€10€(hereinafter€MarcusÐ žF ÐÌò òPage€12ó óÐ j ÐÌMemorandum).€Courts€also€were€forced€to€grapple€with€questions€such€as€whether€federal€or€stateÐ 6Þ Ðlaw€governed€when€an€action€was€"commenced,"€or€when€service€of€process€had€to€be€effectuated.Ð Ä ÐSee€Sentry€Corp.€v.€Harris,€802€F.2d€229€(CA7€1986)€(addressing€those€issues€in€the€wake€of€ourÐ ª Ðdecision€in€Wilson).€And€the€absence€of€a€uniform€federal€limitations€period€complicated€theÐ è Ðdevelopment€of€federal€law€on€the€question€when,€or€under€what€circumstances,€a€statute€ofÐ Îv Ðlimitations€could€be€tolled.€See€802€F.2d,€at€2342-42€(discussing€conflicting€authority€on€whetherÐ ´\ Ðtolling€was€a€matter€of€state€or€federal€law);€Board€of€Regents€v.€Ô_ÔTomanioÔ_Ô,€446€U.S.,€at€485Ð šB Ð(explaining€that€"`borrowing'€logically€included€[state]€rules€of€tolling").Ð €( ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Those€problems€led€both€courts€and€commentators€to€"Ô_Ôcal[lÔ_Ô]€upon€Congress€to€eliminate€theseÐ Lô Ðcomplex€cases,€that€do€much€to€consume€the€time€and€energies€of€judges€but€that€do€little€to€advanceÐ 2Ú Ðthe€cause€of€justice,€by€enacting€federal€limitations€periods€for€all€federal€causes€of€action."€SentryÐ À  ÐCorp.€v.€Harris,€802€F.2d,€at€246.€Congress€answered€that€call€by€creating€the€Federal€Courts€StudyÐ þ¦! ÐCommittee,€which€recommended€the€enactment€of€a€retroactive,€uniform€federal€statute€ofÐ ä Œ" Ðlimitations.€As€we€have€noted,€ðð€1658€applies€only€to€claims€arising€under€statutes€enacted€afterÐ Ê!r# ÐDecember€1,€1990,€but€it€otherwise€follows€the€Committee's€recommendation.€The€House€ReportÐ °"X $ Ðaccompanying€the€final€bill€confirms€that€Congress€was€keenly€aware€of€the€problems€associatedÐ –#>!% Ðwith€the€practice€of€borrowing€state€statutes€of€limitations,€and€that€a€central€purpose€of€ðð€1658€wasÐ |$$"& Ðto€minimize€the€occasions€for€that€practice.Ð b% #' ÐÌ€€€€€€€€The€history€that€led€to€the€enactment€of€ðð€1658€strongly€supports€an€interpretation€that€fillsÐ .'Ö$) Ðmore€rather€than€less€of€the€void€that€has€created€so€much€unnecessary€work€for€federal€judges.Ð (¼%* ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(Footnotes€omitted.)Ð à)ˆ', ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Given€this€background,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658€should€be€appliedÐ ¬+T). Ðbroadly€to€causes€of€action€based€upon€any€enactment€passed€by€Congress€after€December€1,€1990,Ð ’,:*/ Ðstating,€id.€at€382:Ð x- +0 ÐÌ€€€€€€€€We€conclude€that€a€cause€of€action€"Ô_Ôaris[esÔ_Ô]€under€an€Act€of€Congress€enacted"€after€DecemberÐ D/ì,2 Ð1,€1990€ð"ð€and€therefore€is€governed€by€ðð€1658's€4-year€statute€of€limitations€ð"ð€if€the€plaintiff'sÐ *0Ò-3 Ðclaim€against€the€defendant€wasÐ X ÐÌò òPage€13ó óÐ $Ì ÐÌmade€possible€by€a€post-1990€enactment.€That€construction€best€serves€Congress'€interest€inÐ ð˜ Ðalleviating€the€uncertainty€inherent€in€the€practice€of€borrowing€state€statutes€of€limitations€whileÐ Ö~ Ðat€the€same€time€protecting€settled€interests.€It€spares€federal€judges€and€litigants€the€need€to€identifyÐ ¼d Ðthe€appropriate€state€statute€of€limitations€to€apply€to€new€claims€but€leaves€in€place€the€"borrowed"Ð ¢J Ðlimitations€periods€for€preexisting€causes€of€action,€with€respect€to€which€the€difficult€work€alreadyÐ ˆ 0 Ðhas€been€done.Ð n   ÐÌ€€€€€€€€See€also€North€Star€Steel€Co.€v.€Thomas,€515€U.S.€29,€34€n.*€(1995)€("for€statutes€passed€afterÐ : â  ÐDecember€1,€1990,€.€.€.€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658€.€.€.€supplies€a€general,€4-year€limitations€period€for€anyÐ  È  Ðfederal€statute€subsequently€enacted€without€one€of€its€own")€(dicta);€MOORE'S€MANUAL€ð"ðÐ ®  ÐFEDERAL€PRACTICE€AND€PROCEDURE€ðð€10.03[2][b][ii]€(2009)€("This€four€year€`catch€all'Ð ì”  Ðstatute€of€limitations€applies€whenever€a€post€1990€congressional€enactment€creates€a€new€federalÐ Òz  Ðright€to€maintain€an€action.").Ð ¸` ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Clearly,€the€right€to€pursue€a€private€cause€of€action€for€a€violation€of€the€TCPA,€as€permittedÐ „, Ðby€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3),€falls€within€the€scope€of€coverage€of€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658's€4-year€statute€ofÐ j Ðlimitations€as€enunciated€by€the€Court€in€Jones.€Given€the€Jones€Court's€conclusion€that€28€U.S.C.Ð Pø Ððð€1658€applies€"if€the€plaintiff's€claim€against€the€defendant€was€made€possible€by€a€post-1990Ð 6Þ Ðenactment,"€coupled€with€the€fact€that€the€TCPA€was€enacted€in€1991,€we€are€persuaded€that€28Ð Ä ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1658€applies€to€Worsham's€claim.Ð ª ÐÌ€€€€€€€€Although€it€is€true€that€the€first€clause€in€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658(a)€provides€an€exception€to€theÐ Îv Ð4-year€statute€of€limitations€if€"otherwise€provided€by€law,"€we€see€nothing€in€the€legislative€historyÐ ´\ Ðof€either€the€TCPA€or€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658€that€supports€a€rational€conclusion€that€Congress€intendedÐ šB Ðfor€a€different€statute€of€limitations€to€apply€to€private€causes€ofÐ €( ÐÌò òPage€14ó óÐ Lô ÐÌaction€pursued€under€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3).€The€TCPA€was€enacted€just€a€few€months€afterÐ À  ÐCongress€adopted€a€provision€that€was€supposed€to€provide€a€uniform€statute€of€limitations€for€allÐ þ¦! Ðsubsequently€enabled€federal€causes€of€action.€It€seems€highly€unlikely€that,€when€Congress€enactedÐ ä Œ" Ðthe€TCPA€in€1991,€it€intended€to€engender€more€of€the€same€problems€that€were€caused€byÐ Ê!r# Ðborrowing€state€limitations€provisions€prior€to€the€1990€enactment€of€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658.€And€ifÐ °"X $ ÐCongress,€in€fact,€had€intended€to€exempt€actions€under€the€TCPA€from€the€uniform€federal€statuteÐ –#>!% Ðof€limitations,€Congress€could€have€chosen€language€that€made€such€an€intent€more€evident,€or€betterÐ |$$"& Ðyet,€explicit.Ð b% #' ÐÌ€€€€€€€€As€the€Court€of€Appeals€pointed€out€in€Ponte,€Senator€Hollings's€remarks€regarding€the€privateÐ .'Ö$) Ðcause€of€action€reflect€a€desire€to€respect€a€variety€of€state€court€structures.€But€there€is€nothing€inÐ (¼%* ÐSenator€Hollings's€remarks€that€suggests€any€intent€to€exempt€the€private€cause€of€action€in€theÐ ú(¢&+ ÐTCPA€from€the€recently€enacted€uniform€federal€statute€of€limitations.Ð à)ˆ', ÐÌ€€€€€€€€We€recognize€that€there€is€a€split€of€authority€among€courts€of€other€jurisdictions€that€haveÐ ¬+T). Ðconsidered€this€question.3€By€resort€to€linguistic€contortions,€some€courts€have€concluded€that€(a)Ð ’,:*/ Ða€TCPA€claim€does€not€"arise€under"€an€act€of€Congress,€or€(b)€the€catch-all€statute€of€limitationsÐ x- +0 Ðimposed€by€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1658€does€not€apply€to€TCPA€claimsÐ ^.,1 ÐÌò òPage€15ó óÐ *0Ò-3 Їbecause€the€TCPA€provides€"otherwise."€In€our€view,€Jones€obviates€the€need€for€such€verbalÐ X Ðgymnastics.€The€applicable€time€limit€for€filing€a€private€cause€of€action€under€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(3)Ð >æ Ðis€four€years.Ð $Ì ÐÓ ZÓÌÓ  Óò ò€€€€€€€€Accordingly,€Worsham's€complaint€was€not€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,€and€theÐ ð˜ Ðcircuit€court€should€not€have€dismissed€the€complaint€on€that€basis.ó óÐ Ö~ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€We€caution€readers€not€to€confuse€actions€filed€pursuant€to€the€federal€TCPA€with€Maryland'sÐ ¢J Ðsimilar,€but€distinct,€statutes€prohibiting€telephone€abuse,€including€Maryland€Code€(1975,€2005Ð ˆ 0 ÐRepl.€Vol.),€Commercial€Law€Article,€ðððð€14-1313,€addressing€unsolicited€facsimile€transmissions;Ð n   Ð14-2201€et€seq.,€the€Maryland€Telephone€Solicitations€Act;€and€143-201€et€seq.,€the€MarylandÐ T ü  ÐTelephone€Consumer€Protection€Act.€The€statute€of€limitations€for€asserting€claims€pursuant€to€theseÐ : â  ÐMaryland€statutes€would€be€governed€by€State€law€rather€than€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1628(a).€This€would€beÐ  È  Ðtrue€even€for€actions€under€the€Maryland€Telephone€Consumer€Protection€Act,€which,€in€part,€in€ððÐ ®  Ð14-3201,€declares€it€to€be€a€violation€of€Maryland€law€for€a€person€to€violate€the€federal€TCPA.Ð ì”  ÐÓ%†ÓÌ€€€€€€€€JUDGMENT€OF€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€MONTGOMERY€COUNTY€ISÐ ¸` ÐVACATED.€CASE€REMANDED€FOR€FURTHER€PROCEEDINGS€NOT€INCONSISTENTÐ žF ÐWITH€THIS€OPINION.€COSTS€TO€BE€PAID€BY€APPELLEE.Ð „, ÐÌ---------------Ð Pø ÐÌNotes:Ð Ä ÐÌÓ  Ó1.€Although€Worsham's€complaint€also€named€as€a€defendant€Milton€James€Ô_ÔOlmosÔ_Ô,€who€was€allegedÐ è Ðto€be€the€president€of€Tele-Max€Marketing,€Inc.,€"a€now-bankrupt€company,"€that€defendant€wasÐ Îv Ðnever€served.€As€a€consequence,€the€grant€of€Fairfield's€motion€disposed€of€all€claims€against€allÐ ´\ Ðparties€who€had€been€served,€and€was€appealable.€òòTurner€v.€Ô_ÔKightóóÔ_Ô,€406€Md.€167,€172€n.3,€(2008)Ð šB Ð("[A]€`named€defendant€who€has€not€been€served€is€not€a€party€for€the€purpose€of€determining€a€finalÐ €( Ðjudgment'€and€...,€if€the€judgment€entered€by€the€court€disposes€of€all€claims€against€all€persons€overÐ f Ðwhom€the€court€has€acquired€jurisdiction,€the€judgment€is€final€without€a€certification€under€RuleÐ Lô Ð2-602(b)."€(quoting€òòState€Highway€Admin.€v.€Ô_ÔKeeóóÔ_Ô,€309€Md.€523,€529€(1987)).Ð 2Ú ÐÓú‹ÓÌ2.€The€potential€exemptions€are€described€in€47€U.S.C.€ðð€227(b)(2)(B)€as€follows:Ð þ¦! ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(2)€.€.€.€[Ô_ÔT]heÔ_Ô€Commission€ð"ðÐ Ê!r# ÐÌ*€*€*Ð –#>!% ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(B)€may,€by€rule€or€order,€exempt€from€the€requirements€of€paragraph€(1)(B)€of€thisÐ b% #' Ðsubsection,€subject€to€such€conditions€as€the€Commission€may€prescribe€ð"ðÐ H&ð#( ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€calls€that€are€not€made€for€a€commercial€purpose;€andÐ (¼%* ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(ii)€such€classes€or€categories€of€calls€made€for€commercial€purposes€as€the€CommissionÐ à)ˆ', Ðdetermines€ð"ðÐ Æ*n(- ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(I)€will€not€adversely€affect€the€privacy€rights€that€this€section€is€intended€to€protect;€andÐ ’,:*/ ÐÌ€€€€€€€€(II)€do€not€include€the€transmission€of€any€unsolicited€advertisement;€.€.€.€.Ð ^.,1 ÐÌ3.€Among€the€cases€that€have€held€that€the€4-year€limitation€period€provided€by€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ *0Ò-3 Ð1658(a)€applies€are:€òòÔ_ÔSznyterÔ_Ô€v.€Maloneóó,€155€Cal.€App.€4th€1152,€1167,€66€Cal.€Ô_ÔRptrÔ_Ô.€3d€633,€644Ð X Ð(2007);€òòÔ_ÔZelmaÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔKonikowÔ_Ôóó,€379€N.J.€Super.€480,€488,€879€A.2d€1185€(2005);€òòStern€v.€Bluestoneóó,Ð >æ Ð47€A.D.3d€576,€582,€850€N.Y.S.2d€90,€96€(2008),€Ô_Ôrev'dÔ_Ô€on€other€grounds,€12€N.Y.3d€873€(2009).Ð $Ì ÐAmong€cases€that€have€held€that€the€state's€statute€of€limitations€takes€precedence€over€28€U.S.C.Ð  ² Ððð€1658(a)€are:€òòEdwards€v.€Emperor's€Garden€Restaurantóó,€122€Nev.€317,€327,€130€P.3d€1280,Ð ð˜ Ð1286-87€(2006);€òòDavid€L.€Smith€&€Associates,€Ô_ÔLLPÔ_Ô€v.€Advanced€Placement€Team,€Incóó.,€169Ð Ö~ ÐS.W.3d€816,€822€(Tex.€App.€ð"ð€Dallas€2005).Ð ¼d ÐÌ---------------Ð ˆ 0 Ð