314 F. Supp. 3d 1342
S.D. Fla.2018Background
- Plaintiff Cody Becker, a Florida resident, sued HBN Media, Inc. under the TCPA for receiving two unsolicited text-message advertisements to his cell phone sent using an ATDS.
- Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of persons who, within four years, received text advertisements from Defendant without prior express written consent.
- Defendant is Georgia-based and acknowledged the Court has jurisdiction over the named Florida plaintiff and Florida-resident class members.
- HBN moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to strike claims of non-Florida putative class members for lack of personal jurisdiction, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court.
- Defendant alternatively requested a stay pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in an interlocutory appeal addressing Article III/Spokeo standing issues in TCPA claims.
- The Court denied the motion: it declined to extend Bristol-Myers to defeat jurisdiction over non-Florida putative class members at the motion-to-dismiss stage and refused to impose a stay absent firm timing or compelling prejudice reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over claims of non-Florida putative class members | Bristol-Myers does not apply to putative class actions; due process safeguards of Rule 23 permit asserting classwide claims | Bristol-Myers requires affiliation between forum and each plaintiff’s claim; non-Florida claims must be dismissed | Court refused to extend Bristol-Myers to dismiss non-Florida putative class members at this stage; declined to strike those allegations |
| Scope of class definition (nationwide vs. forum-limited) | Nationwide class permissible; named Florida plaintiff may represent nationwide class | Class should be limited to Florida residents/claims because of jurisdictional limits | Court denied request to limit class at this stage; kept proposed nationwide class intact |
| Stay pending Eleventh Circuit decision in Hanna re: Spokeo standing | Opposes stay; litigation should proceed and evidence may fade | Seeks stay because Hanna may resolve injury-in-fact standard for TCPA claims | Court declined to stay, citing lack of schedule/decision date and prejudice to plaintiff and putative class |
| Appropriate procedural remedy at motion-to-dismiss stage | Plaintiff: motion is premature to resolve classwide jurisdictional questions | Defendant: dismissal/striking of non-Florida claims now is appropriate | Court treated jurisdictional challenge as premature and denied dismissal/striking request |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (limits specific jurisdiction where out-of-forum plaintiffs have no connection to forum)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (clarifies Article III injury-in-fact requirement for standing)