Robo-calls can be a real pain and have shown up in litigation time and again. The named defendants were involved in such a dispute that led to this case.
Michael Pickering brought a class action complaint against Defendants ADP Dealer Services, Inc., The Cobalt Group, Inc., Autotegrity, Inc., UpSurge Media Group, LLC, eFlow Media LLC, Dedicated Media, Inc., Swaha Media LLC, Advert Marketing, Inc., and Adsource Marketing, Ltd., seeking to enjoin defendants' alleged practice of making unsolicited text message calls to consumers' cellular telephones. eFlow moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. For the reasons set forth below, the Court granted the motion.
eFlow's core business is the generation of sales leads for companies through the use of its publisher network. This is usually done through e-mails and website banner ads. eFlow is paid by the advertisers on a per-lead basis. eFlow markets itself to potential advertisers through online marketing on its own website and passive marketing via social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
The majority of eFlow's publishers apply to be part of eFlow's network through the company's website. However, most advertisers contact eFlow by telephone first. The website is accessible nationally.
eFlow moved to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Once a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of making out a prima facie case that jurisdiction exists.Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 2004); Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2003).
General jurisdiction gives a court the right to hear any and all claims against the foreign defendant regardless of the forum where the events took place. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011). In order for a court in a forum to have general jurisdiction over a defendant, that defendant must have "continuous and systematic general business contacts" with the forum. Id. Isolated or sporadic contacts with the forum are not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction.Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 701 (7th Cir. 2010).
A court may assert specific jurisdiction over a defendant if: "(1) the defendant has purposefully directed [its] activities at the forum state or purposefully availed [it]self of the privilege of conducting business in that state, and (2) the alleged injury arises out of forum-related activities that the defendant purposefully directed at the forum state."Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 702. In a case like this one, the Court "focuses on whether the conduct underlying the claims was purposefully directed at the forum state." Id.
Pickering failed to show prima facie that specific jurisdiction over eFlow is appropriate.
For the reasons stated above, the Court granted defendant eFlow's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and terminated as moot its motion to dismiss for improper venue [docket nos. 25 & 26]. Plaintiff's claims against defendant eFlow Media, LLC were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Case No. 12 C 6256.
March 13, 2013.
MICHAEL PICKERING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
ADP DEALER SERVICES, INC., f/k/a THE COBALT GROUP, INC., AUTOTEGRITY, INC., UPSURGE MEDIA GROUP, LLC, EFLOW MEDIA LLC, SWAHA MEDIA LLC, ADVERT MARKETING INC., and ADSOURCE MARKETING, LTD., Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
