ROGERS v. SMITH VOLKSWAGEN, LTD.
2:19-cv-02567
E.D. Pa.Apr 6, 2020Background:
- Aaliyah Rogers, a Pennsylvania resident, visited Smith Volkswagen (a Delaware-incorporated, single-store dealership) on May 3, 2019 as a prospective customer and did not authorize any purchase or credit checks.
- Smith accessed Rogers’ TransUnion credit report in Chester, Pennsylvania on seven occasions: once directly and six times by directing six financing institutions to obtain the report.
- Rogers alleges Smith routinely obtains credit reports without a permissible purpose, bringing a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681b).
- Smith moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue and alternatively for failure to state a claim; the court considered the amended complaint, affidavits, and documents.
- The court denied Smith’s motion in full: it found specific personal jurisdiction and proper venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and held § 1681b reaches a person who uses or obtains consumer reports.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General personal jurisdiction | Smith’s contacts with PA are continuous/systematic, supporting all-purpose jurisdiction | Smith is incorporated and headquartered in Delaware, not PA | Denied for plaintiff — court: Smith is not "at home" in PA; no general jurisdiction |
| Specific personal jurisdiction | Smith purposefully accessed TransUnion in PA and directed others to do so; harm was felt in PA | Smith disputes sufficiency of PA contacts and points to third-party processes | Held for plaintiff — prima facie specific jurisdiction: purposeful availment, relatedness, and reasonableness met |
| Venue | Venue proper in EDPA because defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction there | Case should be transferred to District of Delaware | Denied — venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Smith is deemed to reside where subject to PJ |
| Failure to state a claim (§1681b) | §1681b(f) bars any person from using/obtaining a consumer report unless for a permissible purpose | §1681b(a) regulates consumer reporting agencies; Smith argues §1681b(a) controls (and later waived argument that it had a permissible purpose) | Denied — §1681b applies to users under §1681b(f); plaintiff’s claim survives pleading-stage challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (defines when a corporation is "at home" for general jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general-jurisdiction framework)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts doctrine)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (specific jurisdiction focuses on defendant's forum contacts)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test / purposeful direction at forum)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Deiter, 702 F.3d 725 (2d Cir. 2012) (accessing a forum-based server can constitute purposeful availment)
- Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to establish prima facie personal jurisdiction)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (prima facie standard when no evidentiary hearing)
- Dayhoff Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287 (3d Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must prove jurisdiction by affidavits or competent evidence after defense raised)
- Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001) (FCRA disclosure claims akin to invasion-of-privacy effects for jurisdictional analysis)