Just a few months ago, we saw a major blow to QuoteWizard in Mantha v. Quotewizard.Com, LLC, No. 19-12235-LTS, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152987 (D. Mass. Aug. 16, 2024), where the Court certified a massive class due to insufficient consent disclosures. Check out our previous article on this here. Now, in Grochowski v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, No. 24-14162-CIV-MAYNARD, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200736 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2024), the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss a putative TCPA class action for lack of personal jurisdiction and Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. The Opinion provides critical insights into personal jurisdiction analysis in the class action context, especially for multi-state consumer claims under the TCPA.

So let’s get into the background of this case.

The three named Plaintiffs, residents of Florida, Kansas, and Wisconsin, alleged that QuoteWizard.com made unsolicited calls and texts to their phones in violation of the TCPA. QuoteWizard moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over it with respect to the claims of the two non-Florida plaintiffs and also sought to strike the class allegations as impermissibly “fail-safe.” A strong argument indeed.

Conducting a thorough personal jurisdiction analysis, the Judge first found that QuoteWizard, a Delaware company based in Washington, was not subject to general jurisdiction in Florida, as Plaintiff did not dispute QuoteWizard’s evidence on this point. Moving forward, the Court assessed whether Florida’s long-arm statute could establish specific jurisdiction.

Here’s where things got interesting: Specific jurisdiction over the Kansas and Wisconsin Plaintiffs was off the table. Neither plaintiff alleged they received calls or texts in Florida or that QuoteWizard’s actions were linked to Florida in any way. The Court reasoned that “[b]ased on the Complaint’s allegations, it would be unreasonable to infer that the allegedly offending text messages and calls to these two Plaintiffs were made to or from Florida, or otherwise arose from Defendant’s operations in the state.” Id. The Plaintiffs’ choice to file in Florida didn’t carry weight for jurisdictional purposes, and the Court dismissed the claims of the non-Florida plaintiffs without prejudice, leaving the door open for them to join a nationwide class down the line if certified.

For the Florida Plaintiff, though, it was a different story. Applying the “effects test” from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), the Court found that Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that QuoteWizard “purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within Florida” by allegedly having its agents place repeated calls to a Florida resident in violation of the TCPA. The Court’s application of the Calder “effects test” demonstrates how a defendant’s purposeful direction of conduct toward a forum state can establish specific jurisdiction, even if the defendant is not physically present in that state. Here, the Court reasoned that QuoteWizard “should have reasonably anticipated that it may be sued here in Florida” based on these allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

Next, to meet the due process requirements for specific jurisdiction, the Court followed the Eleventh Circuit’s three-part test from Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1355 (11th Cir. 2013). The Court noted that 1) the claim arose out of QuoteWizard’s alleged Florida contacts; 2) under Calder’s effects test, QuoteWizard purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Florida; and 3) exercising jurisdiction aligned with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

When addressing the class certification question, the Court took a cautious approach. While recognizing Plaintiffs’ proposed classes could be seen as impermissibly “fail-safe”—since they essentially hinged on a merits determination of QuoteWizard’s liability—it was premature to strike these class allegations at this stage. The Court reasoned that “striking the class allegations is premature” at this early pleading stage before plaintiff moves for class certification, especially given the Eleventh Circuit’s reluctance to definitively prohibit fail-safe classes in Cordoba v. DIRECTV, L.L.C., 942 F.3d 1259, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2019).

Together, Mantha and Grochowski paint a clear picture: TCPA compliance and jurisdictional defenses are becoming even more critical for companies in the lead generation and the telemarketing space. Be cautious and stay alert.

So what’s the key takeaway? For plaintiffs, Grochowski is a reminder that non-resident claims require strong jurisdictional ties to avoid early dismissal. Conversely for defendants, it demonstrates the power of jurisdictional arguments to limit exposure in multi-state class actions. As for class certification, the Court’s cautious approach in Grochowski leaves the door open for a nationwide class. However, success will depend on what Plaintiffs bring forward at the certification stage. While the Court dismissed the non-Florida Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice, it did so with the express understanding that they could potentially join a nationwide class if certified in the future. This opens the possibility of a broader class action against QuoteWizard, depending on how the Florida Plaintiff’s claims progress.