SCARBO v. WISDOM FINANCIAL, 2:20-cv-05355

Scarbo (pro se) opened a revolving-credit account with My Jeweler’s Club (Colorado) in Feb 2019, purchased jewelry she never received, and the account/line was assigned to MAJR Financial (Colorado).
Scarbo disputes that MAJR’s reported balance and late payments were incorrect; she sought corrections from CRAs and via the CFPB (disputes in July and October 2020) after a denied education-financing application.
MAJR continued to appear on Scarbo’s credit reports; Scarbo sued CRAs and furnishers under the FCRA and FDCPA for failing to correct inaccuracies.
MAJR moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing it has no purposeful contacts with Pennsylvania.
The court applied Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute plus constitutional minimum-contacts analysis and found MAJR is incorporated and headquartered in Colorado, has no offices, employees, advertising, business listings, or consent to suit in Pennsylvania.
The court concluded Scarbo failed to make a prima facie showing of either general or specific personal jurisdiction and granted MAJR’s motion to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
General personal jurisdiction	MAJR engaged in interstate commerce and systematically furnished reports to Pennsylvania CRAs	MAJR is incorporated and based in Colorado with no continuous/systematic contacts in Pennsylvania	No general jurisdiction — MAJR not “essentially at home” in PA
Specific personal jurisdiction	Contracted with Scarbo, attempted collection, and furnished data to PA CRAs causing harm	MAJR did not purposefully direct conduct at Pennsylvania; contract was formed in Colorado; communications were minimal	No specific jurisdiction — plaintiff failed to show purposeful availment or related contacts
Burden/standard for jurisdictional showing	Plaintiff can rely on communications and reports as evidence of contacts	Defendant says plaintiff must prove defendant-created contacts by affidavit/competent evidence	Court applied Metcalfe/Shuker: plaintiff must make prima facie showing and failed to do so
Plaintiff’s forum contacts vs. defendant’s contacts	Scarbo’s residency and disputes with CRAs link MAJR to PA	A plaintiff’s contacts alone cannot establish jurisdiction; defendant’s conduct must create forum contacts	Held for defendant — plaintiff’s contacts insufficient; defendant’s limited contacts with Scarbo do not confer jurisdiction

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum-contacts due-process test)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (defendant’s contacts must be with the forum state itself, not just persons who reside there)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render defendant at home)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (limits on general jurisdiction)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (requires affiliation between forum and underlying controversy for specific jurisdiction)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and relatedness requirements for specific jurisdiction)
J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011) (contacts must be purposefully directed at the forum)
Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc., 566 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to prove personal jurisdiction)
Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC, 885 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2018) (prima facie showing standard when no evidentiary hearing)
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (jurisdictional limits consistent with due process)