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
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
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.