Johnson v. Charter Communications, Inc

Background

Charlotte Guss alleged that her California residential phone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2005. She alleged that, in 2020, she received unsolicited calls from or on behalf of Spectrum seeking to sell cable and internet services. She said that one caller attempted to sell her Spectrum services, obtained personal information from her, and recorded the calls without disclosure.

Guss brought a proposed class action asserting claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC and Charter Communications, Inc., collectively called “Spectrum” in the opinion, moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court explained that personal jurisdiction requires sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum so that exercising jurisdiction complies with federal due process. Specific jurisdiction generally requires a forum-related act, a claim arising from or resulting from that act, and a reasonable exercise of jurisdiction.

The court first concluded that it did not have general personal jurisdiction over Spectrum. The opinion states that Charter Communications, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and that Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company; both companies’ principal places of business were identified as Stamford, Connecticut. Guss did not address Spectrum’s argument on general jurisdiction.

For specific jurisdiction, Spectrum submitted a sworn declaration from Puru Patnekar, its vice president of telesales. Patnekar stated that Spectrum’s telesales group and its vendors had not received Guss’s phone number as a lead, had not used it, and had not placed marketing calls to it. The court found that this evidence directly contradicted key allegations in Guss’s complaint.

Because Guss did not submit an affidavit or declaration responding to Spectrum’s evidence, the court treated Spectrum’s account as uncontroverted for purposes of the motion. It concluded that Guss had not shown that her claims arose out of or resulted from Spectrum’s California-related activities. The court distinguished cases in which a plaintiff might need discovery or sworn evidence to address a defendant’s denial of a fact connected to both jurisdiction and the merits.

Jurisdictional Discovery and Disposition

Guss alternatively requested permission to conduct discovery concerning jurisdiction. The court denied that request, finding that her jurisdictional showing consisted of bare allegations facing specific denials and was based on little more than a possibility that discovery might uncover relevant facts.

The court granted Spectrum’s motion to dismiss Guss’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. The action was stayed pending resolution of arbitration as to Loretta Johnson, subject to the procedures stated in the court’s previous order.