in a private TCPA claim. See Mims, 132 S.Ct. at 747. Thus, this Court applies federal law to determine whether Plaintiffs claims under the TCPA survive his death. See Vinetz v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., No. CV 07-8021, 2009 WL 482299, at *1 (C.D.Cal. Feb. 24, 2009) (“To determine the survival of the cause of action, courts turn to the substantive law controlling the suit.”); see also Sinito v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 176 F.3d 512, 513 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[W]hether a cause of action based on a federal statute survives the death of the plaintiff is a question of federal law.”). . . Under federal common law, the test for survivorship turns on whether the statutory claims at issue are primarily pe nal or remedial in nature. See Estwick v. US.Air Shuttl nc., 638 F.3d 768, 779 (11th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 545 F.3d 1303,
holding that treble damages under the housing and rent act are remedial in nature holding that the tcpas treble damages provision is remedial holding that treble damages awarded under the civil theft statute are remedial not punitive holding that the tcpas 500 statutory damages provision is remedial holding treble damages under the civil theft statute are punitive