A District Court judge in Washington has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss members of a potential Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action who live outside of Washington state, deciding not to follow a “minority” of District Courts that have embraced a “strained theory” of an effort to “overstretch” a Supreme Court decision.
The Background: The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the defendant violated the TCPA by making calls after it had been informed that it was calling the wrong number and was asked not to call that number again.
- The plaintiff included two classes of plaintiffs, both of which the District Court judge has certified.
- The defendant is attempting to argue that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the claims of non-Washington class members and must dismiss that claim.
The Ruling: The defendant invoked a 2017 Supreme Court ruling — Bristol-Myers-Squibb v. Superior Court of California — in which the Supreme Court held that nonresidents of a class action filed in state court did not have an “adequate link” to justify being included in the case. The Court specifically mentioned in its ruling that they were leaving open the question of whether the Fifth Amendment imposes the same restrictions on the exercise of personal jurisdiction by a federal court.
- The defendant attempted to argue that the ruling should be expanded and be applied to class actions filed in federal court.
- Noting that this argument has already been rejected by two Circuit Courts of Appeal, Judge Marsha Pechman of the District Court for the Western District of Washington declined to break ranks and rule the defendant’s argument held water, saying it lacked “logical support.”
- Along with denying the motion to dismiss certain members of the class, Judge Pechman also declined a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal, which would have allowed the defendant to appeal this ruling without waiting for a final outcome of the case at the District Court level.