359 F. Supp. 3d 471
E.D. Tex.2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Craig Cunningham sued CBC Conglomerate LLC, USFFC Inc., and individual officers Bruce Hood, Carey Howe, and Jay Singh under the TCPA, FDCPA, and for invasion of privacy, alleging at least 73 unsolicited calls to his cell number.
- Plaintiff originally filed in 2017; the court previously denied a motion to dismiss for personal jurisdiction to allow amendment and Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting individualized actions by each officer.
- Amended allegations: Hood and Howe allegedly directed Singh to place automated calls for their benefit; Singh allegedly directed employees and controlled USFFC's telemarketing.
- Defendants (Hood, Howe, Singh) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (12(b)(2)), arguing they are California domiciliaries with no contacts making them "at home" in Texas and that calls to Plaintiff (a Tennessee number) are not directed at Texas.
- Plaintiff asserted he was residing in Plano, Texas when most calls occurred and submitted an affidavit and a table of 73 calls, but did not tie the calls to any defendant personally or show defendant-directed conduct in Texas.
- The magistrate recommended, and the district court adopted, granting the motion and dismissing Hood, Howe, and Singh without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction; CBC and USFFC remain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction | Defendants had continuous/systematic contacts with Texas via robocall campaign | Defendants are California domiciliaries, not "at home" in Texas | No general jurisdiction; contacts insufficient to be "at home" in Texas |
| Specific jurisdiction | Defendants purposefully directed >70 calls to Plaintiff while he lived in Texas; knew his number and desire not to be called | Calls were to a Tennessee number and any harm stems from Plaintiff's presence in Texas, not defendant contacts with Texas | No specific jurisdiction; plaintiff's presence and calls do not establish defendant contacts with Texas; contacts were random/fortuitous |
| Corporate-officer liability/alter ego | Officers authorized/controlled calls; corporations were "name only" so officers are reachable | Officer status alone and control allegations insufficient to subject officers to suit in Texas | Officer status, control, and bare alter-ego assertions insufficient to establish jurisdiction over individuals |
| Sufficiency of allegations/evidence | Amended Complaint adds individualized actions and affidavit about residence and call log | Plaintiff still fails to link calls or forum-directed acts to individual defendants; no affidavits showing defendant contacts with Texas | Allegations are conclusory; plaintiff failed to make prima facie factual showing of personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established "minimum contacts" due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be "at home" in forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (reiterated narrow scope of general jurisdiction for individuals and corporations)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment or direction and a claim arising from those contacts)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (plaintiff's contacts with forum cannot substitute for defendant's own forum contacts)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (discusses limits of general jurisdiction and contacts necessary)
- Walk Haydel & Assocs., Inc. v. Coastal Power Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 235 (5th Cir.) (specific jurisdiction requires forum-related contacts that give rise to the suit)
- Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir.) (three-part specific jurisdiction test)