IMHOFF INVESTMENT, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALFOCCINO OF AUBURN HILLS, INC., and Alfoccino, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, 474 F. App'x 450

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff, Imhoff Investment, LLC, appeals the district court’s order dismissing its complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Imhoff brought a claim pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), which provides for a private right of action in state court. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the TCPA did not confer federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In doing so, the district court correctly noted that the majority of circuit courts addressing this issue have held that the TCPA does not authorize a private cause of action in federal court and that jurisdiction in

section 227(b)(3) cases lies exclusively in state court. See Murphey v. Lanier, 204 F.3d 911, 915 (9th Cir.2000) (“We join the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits in the somewhat unusual conclusion that state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a cause of action created by a federal statute, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.”) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 740, 181 L.Ed.2d 881 (2012).

Nevertheless, while the instant appeal was pending, another panel of this court reached a conclusion contrary to the majority rule, interpreting the TCPA to confer non exclusive jurisdiction over private actions filed in state court under

section 227(b)(3). See Charvat v. EchoStar Satellite, LLC, 630 F.3d 459, 463 (6th Cir.2010) (“[T]he district court had federal-question jurisdiction over the claims under the Telephone Act and pendent jurisdiction over the rest of the claims.”). We have long held that a “panel of this [cjourt cannot overrule the decision of another panel.” Salmi v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir.1985).

Thus, Charvat “remains controlling authority [in the Sixth Circuit] unless an inconsistent decision of the United States Supreme Court requires modification of the decision or this [cjourt sitting en banc overrules the prior decision.” Id. In the absence of either occurrence, we conclude that the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this case and, therefore, REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the matter for further proceedings.