Defendant Moves to Dismiss TCPA Class Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Since plaintiff Arthur Cochran can’t establish that Boost Health Insurance Agency could be held vicariously liable for actions of the party alleged to have placed calls that give rise to his Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, the court lacks personal…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
jurisdiction over Boost and the complaint fails to state a claim, the company said in its motion to dismiss Wednesday (docket 4:23-cv-00473) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. Cochran’s Oct. 31 class action alleges Boost runs campaigns marketing its services through telemarketing calls by contacting numbers on the national do not call registry and using a prerecorded message in “plain violation” of the TCPA (see 2311010004). While Boost denies that Cochran sets forth claims against it, the question of personal jurisdiction “is ripe for review at the pleadings stage,” the company’s memorandum said in support of its motion. The complaint “vaguely contends that the calls were placed by Boost but then defines the proposed classes to presuppose that a third party placed the calls on Boost’s behalf,” it said. But Cochran hasn’t and can’t “plead a basis to show vicarious liability because the third party who placed the calls was simply acting as a vendor under an arm’s length agreement, not in the capacity as Boost’s agent,” it said. Because the company didn’t direct any alleged “violative conduct” itself, or through an agent, into the state of Florida, it’s not subject to personal jurisdiction as to Cochran’s TCPA claims, it said.