Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia; October 18, 2018; Federal District Court
Leigh Martin May, United States District Judge, addresses the Defendants IDT Corporation and IDT Telecom, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or Strike Class Allegations regarding a class action complaint filed by the Plaintiff on May 21, 2018. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) due to unsolicited telemarketing calls made to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, specifically targeting individuals who received multiple calls after registering their numbers. The Plaintiff is a Georgia resident, while the Defendants are based in New Jersey.
The Defendants argue that the Supreme Court's decision in *Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal. S.F. Cty.* bars federal courts from exercising specific personal jurisdiction over class-action claims involving non-residents of the forum state. They contend that the Plaintiff’s class definition includes non-residents, warranting dismissal of the complaint or striking of class allegations. The Plaintiff counters that *Bristol-Myers* does not apply to federal class actions and cites majority opinions from various jurisdictions rejecting the Defendants' interpretation. Both parties reference district court precedents to support their positions, highlighting the ongoing debate over the applicability of *Bristol-Myers* to class actions in federal court.
The lower court's conclusion relied on a 'sliding scale approach' to assess the defendant's extensive connections to California and the parallels between non-resident and resident plaintiffs' claims. The defendant challenged the specific personal jurisdiction exercised by the court over non-resident plaintiffs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, emphasizing that while the defendant conducted business in California, it did not engage in key activities related to the drug Plavix within the state, such as marketing or regulatory approval. Non-resident plaintiffs neither received prescriptions, purchased, ingested, nor were injured by Plavix in California. The Court clarified that general jurisdiction allows for any claims against a defendant, but specific jurisdiction requires a clear connection between the forum and the controversy, referencing established legal principles. The assessment of personal jurisdiction must consider the burden on the defendant, which includes both practical inconveniences and the broader implications of submitting to the authority of a state with limited interest in the claims. The Supreme Court determined that California's application of the sliding scale approach exceeded due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not address whether the Fifth Amendment imposes similar restrictions on federal courts and noted that the implications of its ruling on class actions, especially where plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class, remain unresolved. It differentiated the current case from Bristol-Myers, explaining that it involved a class action rather than a mass tort, where individual plaintiffs are directly involved. The class action allows representation for groups of similarly situated plaintiffs, diverging from the typical litigation norm where each party is represented individually.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes class action requirements that provide a coherent framework for defendants to respond to claims, as opposed to mass tort actions where each plaintiff is a distinct party with identifiable contacts with the defendant and the forum state. The court expresses concerns about the impracticalities of determining specific jurisdiction over absent class members whose contacts are unknown and notes that the plaintiff has not yet moved for class certification. Limiting the class to Georgia residents could exclude non-resident class members who have sufficient contacts, complicating jurisdictional analysis typically unnecessary in class actions.
The court distinguishes this case from Bristol-Myers, which dealt with state court jurisdiction and federalism issues not applicable in federal nationwide class actions. It asserts that the defendants have sufficient contacts with the forum for a nationwide class action and that Congress intended class actions to enhance efficiency in litigation. The court aligns with the majority of district courts in finding that Bristol-Myers does not impede the assertion of specific jurisdiction over the defendants concerning claims from potential non-resident class members. Consequently, the court denies the defendants' motion to dismiss or strike class allegations.
