A recent decision issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in Ingram v. Money Map Press, 23-cv-05802-CRB, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130905 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2024) addresses an important personal jurisdiction defense potentially available to defendants facing claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) that are filed against them in states outside of their home state of residence. 

Background

In Ingram, the plaintiff, a resident of California, filed a lawsuit in district court in California alleging the defendant sent him 124 unsolicited promotional text messages, despite the fact that his telephone number was allegedly registered on the National Do-Not-Call registry, in violation of the TCPA. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. The defendant, a Maryland company, moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have sufficient contacts with California. 

Analysis

The court carefully analyzed the jurisdictional question and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. 

First, the court reaffirmed that general jurisdiction over a corporation exists primarily in the state of incorporation or where the corporation has its principal place of business. Thus, general jurisdiction exists only if the defendant is "essentially at home" in the forum state. Ingram, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130905, at p.*4 (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 180 L. Ed. 2d 796 (2011)). The defendant in Ingram, however, was incorporated and headquartered in Maryland, not California, so general jurisdiction was not present. 

Second, specific jurisdiction requires, among other things, that defendant must have “purposefully directed” activities at the forum state, and the plaintiff’s claims arise out of those activities. Ingram, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130905, at pp.*4-5. The Ingram court held the defendant’s activities did not meet these requirements, despite the fact that defendant allegedly initiated promotional text messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone that were received by him in California. Importantly, the plaintiff’s phone number had a Nevada area code, not California, and the court held there was no substantial evidence that the defendant targeted California specifically or had any significant activity in the state related to the claims. The Court observed: “[In] TCPA actions, courts consistently decline to find personal jurisdiction where the cellphone number at issue has an out-of-state area code and no other relevant evidence suggests that the defendant purposefully directed conduct at the forum state. (citations).” Id. at p.*8. 

Finally, plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery was denied. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to provide a "colorable" basis - that is, some evidence tending to establish personal jurisdiction over Defendant - to warrant the Court permitting jurisdictional discovery. Id. at p.*13. The Court noted that where a “claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by the defendants, the Court need not permit even limited discovery." Id. at p.*14 (citing Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006))

Important Takeaways

In today’s mobile-first society, it is increasingly common for consumers to have a cellphone number with an area code that is different from their place of residence. Since personal jurisdiction challenges must be raised in the initial response to the complaint or they are otherwise are deemed waived, companies and their counsel should consider this potentially valuable defense at the outset of any new TCPA case if a defendant is sued outside of the state of its principal residence.