Johansen v. HomeAdvisor, Inc.
218 F. Supp. 3d 577
S.D. Ohio2016Background
- Plaintiff Ken Johansen (Ohio resident) alleges TCPA violations after receiving telemarketing calls to his number on the National Do Not Call Registry in December 2015. He sues HomeAdvisor and One Planet, seeking class relief and statutory damages.
- HomeAdvisor is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Colorado that purchases sales leads through One Planet’s online Marketplace; it has no direct contract or dealings with Lead House, the entity HomeAdvisor contends actually placed the calls.
- One Planet operates a lead marketplace, buys leads from third parties (including Lead House), and sells opportunities to purchase those leads to companies like HomeAdvisor; One Planet represents compliance with laws in its contract with HomeAdvisor.
- HomeAdvisor submitted uncontradicted declarations that it never communicated with or knew of Lead House before the suit and that it did not control Lead House’s calling practices.
- Johansen contends HomeAdvisor is vicariously liable (and thus subject to personal jurisdiction in Ohio) under a ratification theory; he does not press formal agency or apparent authority theories.
- The Court considered written submissions only and required Johansen to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction; it granted HomeAdvisor’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether specific personal jurisdiction exists over HomeAdvisor in Ohio based on TCPA claims | Johansen: HomeAdvisor can be subject to jurisdiction via vicarious liability/ratification of One Planet or Lead House’s telemarketing contacts with Ohio | HomeAdvisor: No sufficient Ohio contacts; it had no agency relationship with Lead House, lacked knowledge of Lead House’s calls, and relied on contractual assurances from One Planet | Court: No specific jurisdiction — dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Whether vicarious liability under TCPA allows attributing an agent’s forum contacts to a seller | Johansen: Seller liability can be based on agency (including ratification) so agent contacts may be imputed | HomeAdvisor: Any attribution fails here because no agency/ratification facts exist | Court: Agrees vicarious liability can attach under agency principles, but plaintiff failed to prove ratification here |
| Whether ratification exists without prior principal-agent relationship | Johansen: HomeAdvisor ratified third-party calls by accepting benefits and turning a blind eye | HomeAdvisor: Ratification requires actor to have acted/pretended to act as agent; no such relationship or pretence existed | Court: No ratification — unrefuted declarations show no principal-agent relationship with Lead House |
| Whether HomeAdvisor had actual or constructive knowledge of TCPA violations sufficient for ratification | Johansen: Prior suits and facts allegedly put HomeAdvisor on notice; should have investigated | HomeAdvisor: Had no knowledge of Lead House and reasonably relied on One Planet’s contractual compliance assurances | Held: No actual or red-flag knowledge; plaintiff did not show HomeAdvisor should have investigated further |
Key Cases Cited
- Beydoun v. Wataniya Rest. Holding, Q.S.C., 768 F.3d 499 (6th Cir.) (personal-jurisdiction plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (framework for due-process minimum-contacts analysis)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Keating v. Peterson’s Nelnet, LLC, [citation="615 F. App'x 365"] (6th Cir.) (recognizing TCPA vicarious liability under FCC/DISH principles)
- Kerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Indus., Inc., 106 F.3d 147 (6th Cir. 1997) (courts may accept uncontroverted defendant affidavits when resolving jurisdictional challenges)
- Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff may not rest on bare allegations; conflicts resolved in plaintiff’s favor only where not controverted)