377 F. Supp. 3d 1034
C.D. Cal.2019Background
- Plaintiff Stephanie Sotomayor filed a putative nationwide class action under the TCPA and California Rosenthal Act alleging Bank of America used an automatic telephone dialing system and placed over 150 calls to her cell after she asked them to stop.
- She seeks to certify a TCPA Class of all persons nationwide who received autodialed calls to cellular numbers after instructing Bank of America to stop, within four years of the complaint.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or strike the claims of non-California resident putative class members for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), relying on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court.
- Bristol-Myers held a state court lacked specific jurisdiction over nonresident plaintiffs in a mass tort where there was no connection between the forum and the nonresidents’ claims.
- The central question was whether Bristol-Myers’s specific-jurisdiction limitation for mass torts extends to class actions seeking to represent nationwide absent class members.
- The Court denied Bank of America’s motion, concluding Bristol-Myers does not control in the class-action context and therefore declined to dismiss or strike nonresident putative class members’ TCPA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bristol-Myers bars exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over claims of nonforum, unnamed class members | Bristol-Myers applies to mass torts, not class actions; Rule 23 and absent-party status distinguish class actions | Bristol-Myers requires dismissal/striking of nonresident class members because no adequate forum link | Court: Bristol-Myers does not extend to class actions; denied motion to dismiss/strike |
| Whether unnamed class members’ contacts matter for specific jurisdiction | Only the named representative(s) need minimum contacts; absent members are not real parties for jurisdictional purposes | Nonresident claims should be considered because they are part of the nationwide class | Court: Absent class members need not have forum contacts; Phillips Petroleum and Rule 23 allow jurisdiction over absent members |
| Whether Rule 23’s safeguards affect fairness analysis in jurisdiction inquiry | Rule 23’s procedural protections mitigate fairness concerns to defendants | Defendant: fairness concerns remain; Bristol-Myers limits jurisdiction regardless of Rule 23 | Court: Rule 23’s requirements (commonality, typicality, superiority) provide due-process safeguards supporting jurisdiction over class claims |
| Whether existing Ninth Circuit and California law require dismissal | Plaintiff: Ninth Circuit precedent and long-arm analysis focus on due process, not Bristol-Myers extension | Defendant: Supreme Court precedent in Bristol-Myers should control | Court: Without controlling contrary authority, decline to extend Bristol-Myers; follow persuasive Ninth Circuit district decisions refusing to apply it |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum contacts standard for due process and personal jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (federal courts may exercise jurisdiction over absent class members’ claims)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (absent class members may be parties for some purposes and not for others)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (class-action device and Rule 23 objectives)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (limit on specific jurisdiction in mass-tort context; central precedent at issue)
- Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015 (discusses minimum contacts in Ninth Circuit)
- Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114 (applies forum law and due-process analysis for jurisdiction)