Roth Jackson | Legal Services - Richmond VA & McLean VARoth Jackson | Legal Services - Richmond VA & McLean VA
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Richmond Office
      • E.G. Allen, III
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • caroline e. browder
      • andrew m. condlin
      • sean m. gibbons
      • mark j. kronenthal
      • kim m. lacy
      • jennifer d. mullen
      • allyson martin sladic
      • C. Taylor Smith
      • Zanas D. Talley
      • Jennifer L. West
    • Tysons Office
      • genevieve c. bradley
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • Gregory M. Caffas
      • joseph f. jackson
      • ashley b. kyle
      • mitchell n. roth
      • Jennifer S. Varughese
  • What We Do
    • banking & finance
    • bankruptcy & creditor rights
    • commercial litigation
    • commercial real estate
    • corporate
    • direct marketing & regulatory compliance
    • employment & labor law
    • Immigration
    • land use & zoning
    • privacy and data security practice group
  • News & Insights
    • TCPA
    • Immigration News
    • Employment & Labor Law News
  • Community Outreach
  • Contact Us

Uncertainty Surrounding Personal Jurisdiction and Purposeful Availment in TCPA cases post-Hood

May 5, 2022JCaudill@rothjackson.comRecent News, TCPA

In TCPA cases, some defendants who are not “at home”[1] in the forum state will seek dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Typically, in TCPA cases, a 12(b)(2) motion is filed when the defendant either did not make the call(s) at issue or the call(s) at issue were received by the plaintiff outside the forum state.

However, a potentially significant blow was struck to these 12(b)(2) motions in TCPA cases with the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Hood v. America Auto Care, LLC, 21 F.4th 1216 (10th Cir. 2021). In Hood, the Tenth Circuit, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Circuit District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021), held that Colorado had personal jurisdiction over the defendants because, despite the plaintiff having a phone number with a Vermont area code, the defendants directing of similar telemarketing calls to Vermont and Colorado satisfied the purposeful-direction requirement of personal jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit’s holding essentially means that personal jurisdiction/purposeful availment can be based not just on a defendant’s contact with a plaintiff, but also on any similar contact the defendant had with other persons in the forum state, regardless of whether those similar contacts were legal.

After the Hood decision, it has been a waiting game to see if other Circuits and District Courts will be adopting the Tenth Circuit’s stance on personal jurisdiction/purposeful availment.

The recent case of Weisbein v. Allergan, Inc., Case No. SA CV 20-0801 FMO (ADSx), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79205 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 28. 2022) provides some insight into the Ninth Circuit’s current position. In Weisbein, the defendant, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, sought dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2). The California Central District Court granted the defendant’s motion for dismissal, holding that the plaintiff had failed to show a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue. Specifically, the plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff had received each of the texts at issue while in Florida, which did not amount to an intentional act expressly aimed at California. The court was not persuaded by the fact that the defendant had California employees that had some involvement in authorizing, outsourcing, or overseeing the subject text program.

Despite this favorable holding to TCPA defendants, it should be noted that an important distinction between Weisbein and Hood is that the complaint in Weisbein appears to not have included allegations of texts similar to the ones received by plaintiff being sent to persons located in California, while the Hood complaint did contain allegations regarding similar calls being sent to persons in Colorado.

While we wait to see what the other Circuits and District Courts will do in the wake of Ford and Hood, it is reassuring to know that at least in the Central District of California, calls made to persons outside of the forum state are not enough to establish personal jurisdiction.   

[1]The defendant is not incorporated in the forum state and their principal place of business is not located in the forum state.

If you have questions about your TCPA or direct-marketing law compliance practices, or would like assistance evaluating how this opinion may affect your business, please contact us:

Genevieve Bradley                                                                         Greg Caffas

703-485-3531                                                                                     703-485-3533

gbradley@rothjackson.com                                                       gcaffas@rothjackson.com


Joseph Bowser                                                                                Mitchell Roth

804-441-8701                                                                                     703-485-3536

jbowser@rothjackson.com                                                       mroth@rothjackson.com


Ashley Kyle                                                                                     C. Taylor Smith

703-485-3520                                                                                   804-729-4440

akyle@rothjackson.com                                                           tsmith@rothjackson.com

Recent Posts

  • Uncertainty Surrounding Personal Jurisdiction and Purposeful Availment in TCPA cases post-Hood
  • Reminder for Employers with 100+ Employees, OSHA’s Vaccine/Weekly Testing Mandate Becomes Effective January 10, 2022
  • Helping Kids Sleep Better This Holiday Season
  • If OSHA’s Vaccine Mandate Is a Go, What Employers with More Than 100 Employees Need to Know

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Categories

Archives

  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • January 2020
  • June 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
Awarded in 2016, 2018, and 2019

find us at

Facebook
LinkedIn

Richmond

1519 Summit Avenue
Suite 102
Richmond, VA 23230

(804) 441-8440
(804) 441-8438

Tysons Corner

8200 Greensboro Drive
Suite 820
McLean, VA 22102

(703) 485-3535
(703) 485-3525

  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Richmond Office
      • E.G. Allen, III
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • caroline e. browder
      • andrew m. condlin
      • sean m. gibbons
      • mark j. kronenthal
      • kim m. lacy
      • jennifer d. mullen
      • allyson martin sladic
      • C. Taylor Smith
      • Zanas D. Talley
      • Jennifer L. West
    • Tysons Office
      • genevieve c. bradley
      • Joseph P. Bowser
      • Gregory M. Caffas
      • joseph f. jackson
      • ashley b. kyle
      • mitchell n. roth
      • Jennifer S. Varughese
  • What We Do
    • banking & finance
    • bankruptcy & creditor rights
    • commercial litigation
    • commercial real estate
    • corporate
    • direct marketing & regulatory compliance
    • employment & labor law
    • Immigration
    • land use & zoning
    • privacy and data security practice group
  • News & Insights
    • TCPA
    • Immigration News
    • Employment & Labor Law News
  • Community Outreach
  • Contact Us
© 2018 Roth Jackson Gibbons Condlin, PLCFreshySites
Terms and Conditions
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING: Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case.
Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case.