The general statute of limitations in Maryland is three years. MD. CODE ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 5-102(a) however, provides that:

(a) An action on one of the following specialties shall be filed within 12 years after the cause of action accrues, or within 12 years from the date of the death of the last to die of the principal debtor or creditor, whichever is sooner:

(1) Promissory note or other instrument under seal;
(2) Bond except a public officer's bond;
(3) Judgment;
(4) Recognizance;
(5) Contract under seal; or
(6) Any other specialty.

Id. (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs' primary support for finding the Maryland TCPA to be a specialty law was predicated upon the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision in Master Fin., Inc. v. Crowder, 972 A.2d 864, 875 (Md. 2009), holding that:

An action based on a statute will constitute an "other specialty" subject to the 12-year period of limitations if (1) the duty, obligation, prohibition, or right sought to be enforced is created or imposed solely by the statute, or a related statute, and does not otherwise exist as a matter of common law; (2) the remedy pursued in the action is authorized solely by the statute, or a related statute, and does not otherwise exist under the common law; and (3) if the action is one for civil damages or recompense in the nature of civil damages, those damages are liquidated, fixed, or, by applying clear statutory criteria, are readily ascertainable.

Plaintiffs contended that the Maryland TCPA fits these criteria because 1) it makes illegal in Maryland duties imposed solely by statute by the FTC's Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6101-6108, and the federal TCPA; 2) it provides for remedies that are authorized only by statute: reasonable attorney's fees and $500 statutory damages; and 3) its remedies are for civil damages that are liquidated or fixed. Thus, under Master Financial's three-pronged test, Plaintiffs argued that the Maryland TCPA qualifies as a specialty law.

Defendants responded with a number of arguments that the Maryland TCPA does not qualify as a "specialty." Though the word "specialty" has not been defined by the Maryland legislature, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland has held that a "specialty" is generally understood to be "a legal instrument under seal." Maryland TCPA claims do not involve legal instruments under seal. Furthermore, Master Financial involved an action of debt rather than one based upon the receipt of unsolicited faxes. Additionally, the Maryland Court of Appeals has held that the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, a statute that is similar in substance to the Maryland TCPA, is not a specialty and therefore was governed by the default three year statute of limitations. Finally, the federal TCPA has a four year statute of limitations period. A finding that Maryland TCPA claims are subject to a twelve year statute of limitations period, rather than the default three year period, would be inconsistent with the federal TCPA.

The answer to this question was determinative of an issue in the case. Plaintiffs' argument raised a novel question of Maryland law. Instead of having this issue of first impression in Maryland law decided by a federal district court, the court certified the question to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Appeals of Maryland will now decide whether the statute of limitations for filing a Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act is twelve years.