Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc., Case No.: 2:20-cv-00570-JAD-EJY
| Decision Date | 10 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 2:20-cv-00570-JAD-EJY |
| Citation | 506 F.Supp.3d 1061 |
| Parties | Paul D.S. EDWARDS, Plaintiff v. JUAN MARTINEZ, INC., et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Paul D.S. Edwards, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Briana Martinez, Robert R. McCoy, Kaempfer Crowell, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants.
Order Dismissing Claims and Parties, Granting in Part Motions for a More Definite Statement and to Strike, and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
Plaintiff Paul Edwards sues Cole Information Services, Inc. and RedX, LLC; their respective CEOs, Jim Eggleston and Mark Leck; and a handful of Century 21 realtors for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and various Nevada laws after Sergio Tamez telephoned Edwards one morning.1 RedX and Cole Information separately move to dismiss Edwards's complaint, arguing that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Cole Information, Eggleston, and Leck, and that Edwards's claims are insufficiently pled.2 RedX also moves for a more definite statement and to strike portions of Edwards's complaint.3 Edwards seeks to compel Eggleston and Cole Information to supply discovery.4
Because Edwards fails to demonstrate that this court can exercise general or specific jurisdiction over nonresidents Eggleston, Leck, and Cole Information, I grant their motions to dismiss. Dismissing the claims against those defendants renders Edwards's motion to compel moot, so I deny it. Next, I hold that even if personal jurisdiction existed over those defendants, Edwards still cannot allege plausible facts demonstrating that they or RedX can be held liable under the TCPA because they are merely information providers that did not direct, authorize, or control the offending call to Edwards. I also dismiss Edwards's Nevada-law claims and grant RedX's motion for a more definite statement—not only do many of the statutes Edwards cites lack a private right of action, but Edwards fails to adequately identify which Nevada laws support his claims. Finally, I dismiss Edwards's claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Cole Information, RedX, and their CEOs with prejudice because he cannot allege facts demonstrating that any of those defendants committed an intentional act. But I grant Edwards leave to amend that claim against the remaining defendants.
On January 17, 2019, Edwards received four unprompted telephone calls from Tamez, a realtor speaking on behalf of Century 21, who wanted to discuss real-estate opportunities in Edwards's neighborhood.5 Uninterested in the offer, Edwards expressed incredulity that Tamez would cold-call him, given that he'd listed his phone number on the national and state Do Not Call Registries.6 So Edwards sued Tamez and Century 21's owners in Nevada state court for violating the TCPA and various Nevada statutes, and for invading his privacy.7 After discovery commenced, Edwards amended his complaint to add claims against Utah-based RedX and Nebraska-based Cole Information, along with their CEOs Leck and Eggleston.8 According to Edwards, RedX provides an "all-in-one prospecting platform" that automatically places calls to potential customers.9 And Cole Information, who maintains a database of consumers’ contact information, purportedly supplied Century 21 with Edwards's phone number.10 Edwards argues that these companies and their corporate officers are "vicariously liable" for Tamez's cold-calling because he "utilized" their "products and services."11
Cole Information removed the suit to this court12 and it, along with RedX and the two companies’ CEOs, now moves to dismiss Edwards's complaint, arguing that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Leck, Eggleston, and Cole Information, and that Edwards's claims are insufficiently pled.13 RedX also moves to strike Edwards's complaint as needlessly prolix and prejudicial, while also moving for a more definite statement.14 Citing Eggleston's and Cole Information's refusal to participate in discovery, Edwards moves to compel both defendants to respond to his written discovery requests.15
A federal court may dismiss an action under Federal Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause limits a court's power to bind a defendant to a judgement in the state in which it sits.16 Where, as here, the defendant is a nonresident, the court must determine whether that defendant has "certain minimum contacts such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."17 "There are two forms of personal jurisdiction that a forum state may exercise over a nonresident defendant—general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction."18 Edwards fails to plausibly allege facts supporting either basis to exercise jurisdiction over Eggleston, Leck, or Cole Information.
Edwards claims that Eggleston, Cole Information, and Leck are subject to this court's general jurisdiction because those defendants, despite being foreign citizens and entities, directly sold their products in Nevada.19 "For general jurisdiction to exist, a [nonresident] defendant must engage in ‘continuous and systematic general business contacts,’ " "approximat[ing] physical presence in the forum state," that are "so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against [the defendant] on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities."20 This is an "exacting standard," and courts should consider the "[l]ongevity, continuity, volume, economic impact, physical presence, and integration into the state's regulatory or economic markets" to find general jurisdiction appropriate.21 "Only in an ‘exceptional case’ will general jurisdiction be available anywhere" other than a party's state of incorporation, state of residence, or corporate headquarters.22
Edwards's complaint—largely centering on both companies’ sale of products in Nevada via the internet—fails to set out an exceptional case. It is axiomatic that "engaging in commerce with residents of the forum state is not in and of itself the kind of activity that approximates physical presence within the state's borders."23 In Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown , the Supreme Court determined that exercising general jurisdiction over a nonresident company whose products flooded the forum was inappropriate because the company had no place of businesses, employees, or accounts in the forum.24 So too in Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, S.A. v. Hall , where the Court held that a foreign company was not subject to the forum court's general jurisdiction, despite the defendant sending its CEO and employees to negotiate a contract in the forum and purchasing multiple products there.25 And in Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc. , which synthesized the reasoning in Helicopteros and Goodyear Tires , the Ninth Circuit held that the mere purchase and sale of products in the forum state, maintenance of business relationships with other companies in the forum, and operation of a " ‘highly interactive’ website" accessible to forum residents is insufficient to support general jurisdiction.26
Despite this established law, these are the exact contacts Edwards proffers to support general jurisdiction over these defendants, claiming that the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate here because Nevada consumers purchased the defendants’ products and Eggleston has attended trade shows in Nevada.27 And with respect to Leck, Edwards offers no substantiated allegations regarding his personal contact with Nevada at all, instead imputing RedX's sale of products in the state to Leck and vaguely gesturing to facts about Leck that he gleaned in discovery.28 But Edwards does not even bother to relay what Leck's actual contacts are , instead repeatedly making conclusory assertions like "Defendant LECK has had contact within Nevada ... for the sole purpose of selling, leasing, and maintaining Defendant REDX’ [sic] products and services." These allegations, like those in Helicopteros, Goodyear Tires , and Mavrix Photo , fail to support general jurisdiction over Leck, Eggleston, and Cole Information in this state.
The absence of general jurisdiction does not end my inquiry. A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant if its less-substantial contacts with the forum give rise to the claim or claims pending before the court—that is, if the cause of action "arises out of" or a has a substantial connection with those contacts.29 "The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant ‘focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’ "30 In the Ninth Circuit, three requirements must be met for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over nonresident tortfeasors: (1) the defendant must purposefully direct his activities toward the forum; (2) "the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities"; and (3) "the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e., it must be reasonable."31 The plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the first two prongs; if he does so, the burden then switches to the defendant to set forth a "compelling case" that the exercise of jurisdiction is unreasonable.32 Failure to satisfy the first two prongs warrants dismissal.33
Edwards fails to allege that the defendants purposefully directed their conduct at the forum or that the defendants’ forum-related contacts gave rise to his claims. Courts apply the Calder "effects" test to determine whether a tortfeasor purposefully directed his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ringgold v. Burgett, Inc.
... ... No. 2:22-cv-00836-DAD-CKD PSUnited States District ... disfavored.” Edwards v. Juan Martinez, Inc., ... 506 F.Supp.3d ... pleadings in this case. Since the present motion addresses ... the ... ...