Paul Edwards stands beside a fax machine Thursday at his home, where he says he received unsolicited faxes, prompting his lawsuit. Photo by Craig L. Moran.

CARSON CITY -- A Las Vegas man who sued a company for repeatedly sending him an unsolicited fax advertisement won a Nevada Supreme Court ruling Thursday giving him the right to sue in state court under a federal consumer protection law.

Paul D.S. Edwards, who brought the action against Direct Access LLC, which does business as Direct Access Partners, can pursue the case in Clark County District Court, a three-member panel of the court ruled.

"I have a big smile on my face," Edwards said. "It's the only way we can stop this."

Edwards, who said he has been called a "lawsuit gadfly" for bringing such actions, has similar cases awaiting rulings before the court.

"I guess it's the idea that we the consumers have to pay for their advertising," he said. "The faxes come in at all times of the day. I don't have an office. If a fax is sent at 2 a.m., my phone rings."

Edwards filed his complaint in District Court, but it was dismissed. He appealed and the Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the case.

The court panel found that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which imposes penalties on those who send unsolicited junk faxes, extends jurisdiction to state courts.

Since the Nevada Legislature has not acted to take away state court jurisdiction, such complaints can be brought in Nevada, said Justice James Hardesty, who wrote the opinion.

Edwards received the unsolicited fax on six occasions in 2002 and 2003, inviting him to contact the company about obtaining low-interest loans. In May 2003, Edwards sent a demand for $3,000 for violations of federal and state law.

When the company refused, Edwards filed his complaint seeking $500 for each fax transmission, with treble damages to $9,000 under the law.

The company argued that Edwards could not bring the claim in state court and that even if such an action was allowed, the claim did not meet a monetary threshold of $10,000.

The lower court agreed and dismissed the case.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court said the issue of whether state courts could hear violations of the federal act was a matter of "first impression" that has not been addressed before.

The court found that the law can be used to bring actions in state court, but other court rules must be followed. The court noted that the monetary threshold in effect in 2003 when Edwards filed his complaint was $7,500, and so the action was in conformance with court rules.

Edwards said he does not bring such cases to make money. Sometimes he makes a profit, but other cases don't pay for all the time and court fees, he said.

"I learned years ago that consumers have rights, but most people don't know their rights or the process. I know the process."