Naiman v. Blue Raven Solar
2:19-cv-01643
| D. Nev. | Sep 24, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Louis Naiman (Nevada resident) sued Blue Raven Solar, Renovation Referral (a telemarketing vendor), and Renovation owner Gabriel Solomon under the TCPA for automated/nonconsensual calls.
- Naiman received a Renovation call that identified Blue Raven as the local company; Blue Raven was identified on some calls and Renovation used aliases on others.
- Solomon (Florida) purchases Nevada-targeted call lists and large numbers of local-area-code caller IDs; he denies day-to-day oversight but admits purchasing data and caller IDs.
- Prior lawsuits and consumer complaints tied Renovation’s calling practices to Blue Raven; Naiman’s counsel notified Blue Raven of an intent-to-sue before filing.
- Blue Raven contracted with Renovation as an "independent contractor," continued to accept leads/customers, and did not terminate Renovation until July 2020 after allegations of falsified consent.
- Procedural posture: magistrate-ordered phased discovery on vicarious liability; Solomon moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction/venue; Blue Raven moved for summary judgment arguing no agency/vicarious liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Solomon | Naiman: Solomon purposefully directed calls to Nevada (bought NV lists & local caller IDs, selected dialer, authorized campaign) | Solomon: He did not personally direct the call or oversee daily calling; contacts insufficient | Denied — court finds prima facie specific jurisdiction: intentional acts expressly aimed at Nevada and exercise is reasonable |
| Venue | Naiman: Locus of injury is Nevada where he received the call | Solomon: Venue improper | Denied — substantial part of events (injury) occurred in Nevada |
| Vicarious liability / agency (Blue Raven) | Naiman: Blue Raven ratified Renovation by accepting benefits, ignoring complaints, and failing to investigate after notice | Blue Raven: Renovation was an independent contractor; no actual/appparent authority or ratification | Denied summary judgment — genuine dispute of material fact whether Blue Raven ratified Renovation (actual knowledge or willful ignorance) |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (personal-jurisdiction limits require defendant-directed contacts with the forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction standards)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts test for jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment / foreseeability in jurisdictional analysis)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction in Ninth Circuit)
- Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int'l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) (purposeful-direction standard for intentional torts)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Henderson v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 918 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2019) (vicarious liability under TCPA; ratification and agency principles)