A District Court judge in Nevada has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case, granting the plaintiff 90 days of jurisdictional discovery to collect evidence proving the relationship between the defendants — one of which is a real estate company and the other who is a realtor. Specifically, the discovery will focus on contracts, training materials, and any evidence showing the company had influence over the realtor’s marketing activities.
The plaintiff has accused the defendants of violating the TCPA. The realtor allegedly made multiple unsolicited calls to the plaintiff’s cell phone, which was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry. The calls featured prerecorded voice messages. The case hinges on whether the realtor acted as an agent of the company or as an independent contractor. The difference is crucial, as agency establishes liability for the company under the TCPA.
The company moved to dismiss the case, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, insisting that the realtor acted independently. However, the plaintiff countered that the company had control over the realtor’s activities, providing her with training and lead generation tools to make the calls. The plaintiff alleged that the company trains its realtors to use lead generation services to find the phone numbers of individuals who previously listed their homes on the market but did not sell their homes.
Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the District Court for the District of Nevada decided that more evidence was needed to determine whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the company, which could hinge on the nature of its relationship with the realtor.