179 A.3d 9
Pa.2018Background
- Plaintiff Jobe Danganan contracted with Guardian Protection Services (Pennsylvania headquarters) for home-security services; dispute arose after Guardian continued billing following his move and attempted cancellation.
- Danganan filed a class action in Pennsylvania state court asserting only Pennsylvania statutory claims (UTPCPL and Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act); Guardian removed to federal court.
- The district court dismissed under the UTPCPL, holding plaintiff (a non‑Pennsylvania resident) lacked a “sufficient nexus” to Pennsylvania and that Pennsylvania law did not generally protect nonresidents for out‑of‑state transactions.
- The Third Circuit certified two questions to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: (1) whether non‑residents can sue under the UTPCPL against Pennsylvania‑headquartered businesses for out‑of‑state transactions, and (2) whether parties can expand UTPCPL protections by contractual choice‑of‑law.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court analyzed statutory text, remedial purpose, and persuasive authority (notably Washington’s Thornell decision) and rejected the district court’s sufficient‑nexus limitation.
- Court held that non‑Pennsylvania residents may bring UTPCPL claims against Pennsylvania‑headquartered businesses based on out‑of‑state transactions; the contractual choice‑of‑law question was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non‑Pennsylvania residents may sue under the UTPCPL against PA‑headquartered businesses for out‑of‑state transactions | UTPCPL text ("person", "trade", "commerce") contains no residency limit; remedial purpose and liberal construction support nonresident suits | UTPCPL protects Pennsylvania residents unless a sufficient nexus (primary and substantial connection) to PA exists; otherwise it would overreach | A non‑resident may bring a UTPCPL suit against a PA‑headquartered business for out‑of‑state transactions; no textual residency restriction; sufficient‑nexus rule rejected |
| Whether parties can expand UTPCPL protections by contract choice‑of‑law (i.e., apply UTPCPL to nonresidents by agreement) | If UTPCPL were limited, contractual choice‑of‑law could control and permit UTPCPL for nonresidents | Choice‑of‑law cannot be used to broaden statutory reach beyond state interest; forum/state interests control | Moot (court’s answer to first question renders this unnecessary) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC v. Department of Banking, 607 Pa. 432, 8 A.3d 282 (interpreting “person” to include nonresident businesses under a consumer statute)
- Thornell v. Seattle Serv. Bureau, Inc., 363 P.3d 587 (Wash. 2015) (Washington Supreme Court allowed nonresident plaintiff to proceed under state consumer protection law; persuasive on statutory terms and remedial purpose)
- Commonwealth by Creamer v. Monumental Props., Inc., 459 Pa. 450, 329 A.2d 812 (1974) (UTPCPL is remedial and to be liberally construed to prevent unfair or deceptive practices)
- Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (1964) (rejecting lex loci delecti approach; discussed in context of choice‑of‑law principles)