Janet Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Security Americas
885 F.3d 243
| 4th Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiffs brought a TCPA class action alleging home-security retailers (VMS and ISI) made illegal robocalls and DNC calls; they sought vicarious liability against manufacturers UTC and Honeywell.
- UTC and Honeywell sold products through distributors/ADI; they did not sell directly to consumers or receive direct proceeds from retail sales.
- Both manufacturers had limited branding/use agreements with the retailers and contractual provisions disclaiming agency and requiring legal compliance; each offered rebates tied to purchase volumes.
- Both manufacturers received complaints about aggressive telemarketing: UTC investigated VMS, gave warnings, required an ethics presentation, and later terminated VMS; Honeywell investigated ISI, visited its offices, pushed for compliance, and ultimately terminated ISI.
- UTC and Honeywell moved for summary judgment on vicarious liability before discovery closed; Plaintiffs filed a Rule 56(d) declaration seeking more depositions and document-driven discovery. The district court denied the Rule 56(d) request and granted summary judgment for UTC and Honeywell.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: Plaintiffs failed to show they lacked a reasonable opportunity to obtain essential discovery and failed to produce more than speculative evidence that the manufacturers ratified or benefited from the alleged TCPA violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) request to delay ruling on summary judgment | Plaintiffs said additional depositions were critical because defendants produced thousands of new documents after initial depositions and depositions were needed to test those documents | Defendants said Plaintiffs had already deposed executives earlier and had a three-month window after the MDL stay was lifted to schedule depositions but did not; the Rule 56(d) affidavit was vague and did not identify specific essential evidence | Denial affirmed — Plaintiffs had reasonable opportunity to take discovery and their Rule 56(d) declaration failed to identify specific evidence that would create a triable issue |
| Whether UTC and Honeywell can be held vicariously liable (ratification) for retailers' alleged TCPA violations | Plaintiffs argued manufacturers ratified the illegal telemarketing by (1) failing to repudiate prerecorded/DNC practices, (2) rewarding retailers via rebates, and (3) accepting benefits from increased product purchases driven by illegal calls | Defendants pointed to active investigations, warnings, compliance measures, and eventual termination of dealer agreements; they argued rebates and downstream sales claims were speculative and defendants received no direct proceeds | Summary judgment affirmed — Plaintiffs offered only speculative or conclusory evidence; record showed repudiation and no proof manufacturers knew material facts or directly benefited such that ratification could be inferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Pisano v. Strach, 743 F.3d 927 (4th Cir. 2014) (Rule 56(d) analysis and standard for postponing summary judgment)
- Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006) (nonmovant entitled to postpone summary judgment when lacking opportunity to discover essential information)
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) (use of agency principles and Restatement guidance)
- Cilecek v. Inova Health Sys. Servs., 115 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 1997) (agency-law principles referenced for vicarious-liability analysis)
- Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645 (4th Cir. 2002) (conclusory or speculative allegations insufficient to survive summary judgment)
- Phillips v. CSX Transp., Inc., 190 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 1999) (standard that more than a scintilla of evidence is required to avoid summary judgment)
- Henry v. Purnell, 652 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 2011) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (noted as part of MDL stay reasons)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (noted as part of MDL stay reasons)