Ingram v. Money Map Press, LLC

Background

Warren Ingram sued Money Map Press, LLC under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that the company negligently, knowingly, or willfully sent him approximately 124 unsolicited text messages over nine months even though he was on the Do Not Call registry. He sought money damages and injunctive relief.

Money Map Press moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Ingram opposed dismissal and alternatively requested jurisdictional discovery about how the company obtained his phone number and about the company’s contacts with California.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court first concluded that it lacked general personal jurisdiction. The court explained that general jurisdiction ordinarily exists where a company is fairly regarded as at home. Money Map Press argued, and Ingram did not dispute, that it was incorporated and principally located in Maryland. The court found no evidence that the company’s California activities were substantial or continuous and systematic enough to make California a place where the company could be considered at home.

The court also concluded that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction. Specific jurisdiction depends on the relationship among the defendant, the forum state, and the claims. Under the Ninth Circuit’s test, Ingram had to show, among other things, that Money Map Press purposefully directed its conduct at California and that his claims arose from that forum-related conduct.

Money Map Press submitted a sworn declaration stating that Ingram opted in to receive text messages using an out-of-state phone number and provided no other location information. The company also submitted evidence that the number had a 702 area code associated with Las Vegas, Nevada. Ingram relied on screenshots from the company’s website, arguing that he would have provided a California address or ZIP code when registering for text alerts or contacting customer service.

The court found that the screenshots did not establish purposeful direction toward California. They were undated, the website was no longer active for verification, and the relevant address and ZIP-code fields were not shown to be required. Ingram also did not state that he actually submitted California location information to the company. The court therefore found that he had not met his burden to establish the first part of the specific-jurisdiction test.

Jurisdictional Discovery

The court denied both requests for jurisdictional discovery. As to how Money Map Press obtained Ingram’s phone number, the court acknowledged that the issue was relevant to jurisdiction but found that Ingram had not provided a “colorable” basis—some evidence tending to show jurisdiction. His argument that he hypothetically would have provided California information was only speculation and did not justify discovery.

The court likewise denied discovery into Money Map Press’s broader contacts with California. It found that Ingram’s belief that the company might have targeted consumers in other states was only a hunch and did not provide a colorable basis for jurisdiction. The court also noted that contacts unrelated to Ingram’s claims would concern general jurisdiction, which he had not supported with evidence.

Ruling

Judge Charles Breyer granted Money Map Press’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Ingram’s requests for jurisdictional discovery. The opinion did not decide whether Money Map Press violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.