Schlesinger v. Collins

Background

Brian Schlesinger sued Joshua Collins, doing business as xpresscapitalgroup.com. Schlesinger alleged that Collins, or someone acting for him, called Schlesinger using an artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express consent. He asserted a claim under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and a similar California claim. He also sought to represent a nationwide class on the federal claim and a California class on the state claim.

Collins moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. In the alternative, he asked the court to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court denied dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. It applied the Ninth Circuit’s three-part test for specific jurisdiction: whether the defendant purposefully directed activity at the forum, whether the claim arose from that activity, and whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable.

The court treated the alleged conduct as essentially a tort claim and applied the “effects” test. That test asks whether the defendant committed an intentional act, expressly aimed it at the forum state, and caused harm the defendant knew was likely to occur there. The court concluded that Collins or someone acting for him ultimately targeted California by calling Schlesinger’s number, which had a California area code. The court found that Collins knew he was making a call into California and had not shown that exercising jurisdiction there would be unreasonable.

Venue

The court also denied dismissal based on improper venue. Although Collins argued that virtually all relevant actions occurred in Florida, the court found that a substantial part of the events also occurred in California because the call was directed there and the alleged harm occurred there. The court explained that more than one federal district can be a proper venue.

Transfer

The court granted Collins’s motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to move a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice when the case could have been brought in the receiving district.

The court gave some deference to Schlesinger’s choice of California, because he resides there and at least part of the events occurred there. That deference was limited because he brought a putative nationwide class action. The court found that the key evidence was likely in Florida, Collins resided there, he operated his business there, and at least one employee who appeared to have made the call was based there. The convenience of the witnesses therefore strongly favored Florida. Other factors, including the courts’ familiarity with the federal law involved, were neutral or largely neutral.

Disposition

Judge Chen denied Collins’s motion to dismiss but granted his motion to transfer. The clerk was instructed to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida and close the file in the Northern District of California. The order disposed of Docket No. 8.