Another Win for Out-of-State TCPA Defendants: Court Strikes Non-Resident Class Members for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

[sohanuzzaman56]

Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim defendants and fans of civil procedure have cause to celebrate as another district court limits the scope of potential class members against out-of-state defendants.

On May 10, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois struck non-residents of Illinois from a putative class in a TCPA class action against two Florida corporations. The ruling marks another affirmation of the extension of the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Bristol Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), to limit courts’ jurisdiction over out-of-state TCPA defendants.

The case, Garvey v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Fl. et al., No. 17-cv-986 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2019), concerned alleged telemarketing calls using an automated telephone dialing system to individuals without 99 acres data their prior express consent. The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, sought to certify a class on behalf of “[a]ll persons in the United states and its Territories” that had received similar calls. The defendants – two companies incorporated in and with their principal places of business in Florida – moved to strike any putative members of the class that did not live in Illinois. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol Myers, found that it lacked general personal jurisdiction over the companies with respect to claims by non-residents of Illinois.

The Court’s decision in Bristol Myers, while involving the not-so-simple subject of mass tort litigation, ultimately dealt with the basic concept of personal jurisdiction that underlies the judiciary’s power over citizens and businesses. In a nutshell, courts must have personal jurisdiction – either general or specific – over a person or entity in order to decide a controversy involving that party. General personal jurisdiction exists, for example, where a person resides in or a company is headquartered in the same forum (e.g., state) as the court. If a court lacks general personal jurisdiction, it may still have specific personal jurisdiction over a person or entity if there are sufficient contacts with the forum. The relevant example here is that when an out-of-state entity causes injury in a state, there is specific personal jurisdiction because of that injury.