September 23, 2021

Volume XI, Number 266

Advertisement

September 23, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 22, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 21, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 20, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

No Jurisdiction! Florida Company Defeats Massachusetts’ Litigant’s Sprawling TCPA Lawsuit On Personal Jurisdiction Grounds

Patrick Michaud sued a Florida home improvement company and a salesperson in Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts.  He asserted various TCPA and state-law equivalent claims.  The Defendants moved the case to federal court and then moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Court agreed with Defendants and dismissed the case. Michaud v. Solomon, 20-cv-11999-DJC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102076 (D. Mass. May 29, 2021).  The decision is a useful reminder that all TCPA defendants should carefully consider jurisdiction when facing a lawsuit in a locale far removed from their business operations.

Mr. Michaud first argued Defendants were subject to general jurisdiction in Massachusetts, but only in conclusory fashion that “Defendants ‘had continuous business with Massachusetts directly by and through their agents.'”  Id. at * 10.  The Court rejected this argument because Defendants proffered concrete evidence that they had “no presence” in Massachusetts and thus were not “in any way ‘at home’ in Massachusetts.”  Id. at *11.

Likewise, for specific jurisdiction, Mr. Michaud failed to present evidence that any claim arose out of or related to Defendants’ in-state activities; nor did Mr. Michaud present evidence that Defendants had purposefully availed themselves of the laws of the forum state.  In particular, the Defendants presented evidence that they did not employ one of the caller’s in question when he allegedly called Mr. Michaud, and the company had network issues that prevented calls when Mr. Michaud alleged he received calls from Defendants.  Id. at *12-13.  Additionally, the Court concluded that–in light of Defendants’ minimal contacts with Massachusetts–its exercise of personal jurisdiction would not be reasonable.

This case is a good reminder about the need to challenge jurisdiction if there’s an opportunity to do so.

© Copyright 2021 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLPNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 158
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Brent Owen Energy Litigation Attorney Squire Patton Boggs Denver, CO
Senior Associate

Brent Owen represents energy, mining, construction, consumer services, and political clients in high-stakes litigation at trial and on appeal. Brent’s college experience as a full-scholarship Division I offensive lineman allows him to appreciate the value of consistent hard work in achieving a favorable result.

His experience includes all aspects of litigation, including trials in both state and federal courts before judges and juries and in arbitration tribunals, including the International Chamber of Commerce and the American Arbitration Association. A former law clerk to the...

303-894-6111
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement