Hauling out of jurisdiction telemarketers into your local court - A Federal Judge has thoughts

Recently my law clerk Nathen Barton made the news for obtaining a $130,900 default judgement against Richardson Marketing Group LLC, an Ohio company, in a Washington State federal court.

The opinion in Barton v. Real Innovation, 2025 WL 1993193 (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2025) highlights my thoughts on obtaining jurisdiction over out of state defendants.

Barton v Richardson Marketing Group LLC.pdf

Download PDF • 262KB

Of course, let's start with some background. Pretty standard stuff.

Plaintiff initiated this action in Clark County Superior Court, and it was removed to this Court. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendants Real Innovation, Inc. (“RI”) and its founder Peter Reierson, as well as RMG and its owner Deryck D Richardson, alleging that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and its implementing regulations. Plaintiff also alleged state law claims. Plaintiff alleges that RI is a “seller” as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(10), and RMG is a “telemarketer” under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12) making calls on behalf of the seller . . . He lists 77 specific phone calls he claims were made to him in violation of TCPA, listing the calling number, date of the call, number that was called, whether the speaker was a live person or an automated system, and other details . . . Defendant Richardson accepted service on behalf of RMG. Because RMG did not file an answer to the complaint, Plaintiff moved to hold RMG in default. Defendant Richardson, appearing pro se, then filed an answer purportedly on behalf of himself and RMG, denying the claims and crossclaims. This Court held that Richardson could not answer on behalf of RMG, because Local Rule 83.2(b)(4) states that “[a] business entity, except a sole proprietorship, must be represented by counsel.” But the Court deferred ruling on the motion for default, affording RMG an opportunity to retain counsel and answer the complaint by September 17, 2024. That deadline came and went without any action by RMG. The Court then granted the motion and ordered the Clerk to enter default against RMG, and the Clerk did so on September 19, 2024.

Wordy but simple facts. Barton sued Richardson Marketing Group LLC [RMG]. RMG was calling on behalf of Real Innovation [RI] who also sued RMG for selling them bad leads. RMG doesn't hire an attorney, and defaults.

Courts are always going to do a jurisdiction analysis before issuing a judgment and this case was no different.

Personal jurisdiction is a closer question [than subject matter jurisdiction]. A plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a defendant “purposefully direct[ed] his activities or consummate[d] some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform[ed] some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum” and that the claim arises out of those forum-based activities, the burden then shifts to the defendant to make a “compelling case” that jurisdiction would be unreasonable . . . Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction is a waivable individual right, so it is typically only considered on motion, but when considering a motion for default judgment, the district court “has the duty to assure that it has the power to enter a valid default judgment.” Defendant RMG is incorporated in Ohio. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants are subject to jurisdiction in this Court because they directed phone calls to Plaintiff in Washington, where he resides. Numerous courts have held that a telemarketer who makes phone calls into the forum state is subject to specific personal jurisdiction there as to TCPA claims arising from those calls, at least when the phone number is registered in the forum state. See e.g., Ott v. Mortg. Invs. Corp. of Ohio, 65 F. Supp. 3d 1046, 1057–1059 (D. Or. 2014); Luna v. Shac, LLC, No. C14-00607 HRL, 2014 WL 3421514, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2014) (“When [Defendant] intentionally sent unsolicited text messages advertising Sapphire to California cell phone numbers, which conduct gave rise to this litigation, it purposefully directed its activity to California such that [Defendant] is reasonably subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.”); Baker v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., No. CV 13-8246-PCT-PGR, 2014 WL 880634, at *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 6, 2014) (“The Court finds that complaint in this case is sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, based on the allegation that Defendant made calls to Plaintiff's Arizona number and the fact that those calls are the basis for Plaintiff's claims.”); Rogers v. Nat'l Car Cure, LLC, 636 F. Supp. 3d 762, 769 (S.D. Tex. 2022) (“Most courts to address the question have held that calls to a cell phone can serve as minimum contacts with the state containing the phone's area code when the calls are received there.”) Here, however, Plaintiff pleads that he had two phone numbers Defendants called, one with a (972) area code and the other with a (469) area code. (Dkt. No. 40 at 5, 14–19). The Court takes notice that both of these area codes are associated with the Dallas, Texas metropolitan area—not Washington. Plaintiff does however plead that he put Defendants on notice of his Washington residency by repeatedly informing them of his zip code. He pleads that during the first call in his complaint, on July 12, 2022, he was asked for a zip code and he gave 98607 (which is associated with Camas, WA). He gave his zip code again and his home address when prompted during a call on August 2, 2022. Other information in the complaint indicates an awareness on the part of Defendants’ agents of Plaintiff’s Washington residency. Plaintiff pleads that during a call on August 22, 2023, a telemarketer working for RMG transferred his call to an agent working for Defendant RI. During this process, the RMG agent stated, “I have Mr. Nathen with me on the line and his zip code is 98607,” and then RI’s agent “Damon” took over the call, stating “this is Damon and I am a senior licensed life insurance agent for Washington…” This indicates that both Defendants RI and RMG, through their agents, had an awareness they were transacting with a Washington customer. The Court finds that this is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction at the pleading stage, especially with Defendant failing to contest jurisdiction. An area code in the forum state can serve as an indicator to a defendant that they are transacting business in the forum, but it is an imperfect indicator because “increasingly, people keep their cell number as they move from state to state, untethering the number's area code from its owner's state of residence.” . . . In cases where the plaintiff’s phone number was not registered in the forum, courts have asked whether there is any other information in the complaint sufficient to show that defendants availed themselves of the forum . . . Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has alleged just enough facts in the complaint to show Defendant did have awareness that Plaintiff was in Washington, sufficient to find that Defendant directed its activities to and availed itself of the forum.

So what's the point of all this? If you the Telemarketer calls you at an area code of your home jurisdiction, your local court probably has jurisdiction over that telemarketer. But if that telemarketer was calling on behalf of another entity, the Court will do another jurisdiction analysis over that Seller - and asking the same questions. Did the Seller have an awareness they were reaching into the forum state?

You can answer that question Yes by your conduct as alleged in your complaint to get you the jurisdiction you need over the out of state Telemarketer and/or Seller.

Another great case in a similar vein is Kruzel v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., No. 6:23-cv-01183-AA, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159526 (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2025).

Kruzel v. Molina Healthcare_ Inc._2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159526.Pdf

Download PDF • 311KB

Ms. Kruzel is an Oregon resident with a California area code phone number, and the Molina defendants were not incorporated or headquartered in Oregon. Despite having no connection with Molina, Ms. Kruzel alleged to have received at least 30 phone calls from them.

Plaintiff alleges that "[o]n December 9, 2021, [she] texted 'STOP' and 'UNSUBSCRIBE'" to stop the texts, but continued to receive them, that "[o]n January 26, 2023, [she] called MHC and advised MHC that (1) she was receiving calls [*3] on her cellular telephone number for someone that was not her, (2) she had never used any Molina services, and (3) she resided in Oregon, not California[,]" . . . and that "[o]n April 28, 2023, Plaintiff sent a letter to MHC demanding that the calls stop, and again advising MHC that (1) it had been calling the wrong number, (2) that she had no relationship with Defendants, and (3) that she was considering filing a lawsuit in Oregon small claims court[,]" Plaintiff attests that "even after calling and writing, [she] received additional calls about Molina's 'Wellness Rewards' program on June 27, 2023 and June 30, 2023."

Ms. Kruzel did file suit in Oregon. After reviewing the parties' filings, the Court determined that jurisdictional discovery was appropriate. Accordingly, the Court stayed Defendants' motion and granted Plaintiff leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. After the parties completed discovery, the Court granted the parties leave to amend their pleadings and refile their motions [the Molina defendants wanted to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction].

The Molina defendants jurisdiction argument was (in part) that they themselves didn't iniate the calls but used third party contractor Icario [formerly known as NovuHealth] to initiate the calls and thus their thinking went, kept the Molina defendants out of Oregon's jurisdiction.

MHI does not dispute that "MHI entered into [Agreements] with Icario, Inc. or its predecessor . . . on behalf of itself and its subsidiaries[.]" But MHI argues that Plaintiff fails to meet the "purposeful availment" requirement because a "contract alone does not automatically establish minimum contacts in the plaintiff's home forum. . . . Rather, there must be actions by the defendant himself that create a substantial connection with the forum State."

This argument was a red herring, and don't bite if you encounter it:

Defendant misunderstands Plaintiff's theory of the case. Plaintiff's claim does not arise out of the contracts, it arises out of the allegedly tortious TCPA violations. Plaintiff offers the Agreements to support her theory that Icario acted as MHI's agent when it placed the artificial or prerecorded voice message calls at issue. "Even where a party did not itself make a call, it may be held vicariously liable for TCPA-violating calls 'where the plaintiff establishes an agency relationship . . . between the defendant and a third-party caller.'"

The Molina defendants' next argument was over Ms. Kruzel's out of Oregon area code phone number.

MHI asserts that it "has no records linking [*18] Plaintiff or [her phone number] to Oregon." MHI relies on Nichols v. 360 Ins. Grp. LLC, No. 22-CV-03899-RS, 2023 WL 163201, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2023) for the proposition that a defendant who "lack[s] knowledge that conduct targeted the forum state because plaintiff's phone number began with a non-forum area code" has not expressly aimed at the forum state.

This is where Ms. Kruzel, like Mr. Barton, had won the battle:

Plaintiff attests that she called and emailed MHC, informed MHC she lived in Oregon, and instructed them to stop the calls. Even assuming that MHC did not actually communicate or was not obligated to communicate that information to MHI-the sole Molina signatory on the Icario contract, MHI acquired actual knowledge that the subject calls were being directed into Oregon during this litigation. And even then a year into litigation-Plaintiff received another Molina text and two more Molina calls.

Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington or Oregon? I handle TCPA lawsuits in both states and may be able to help. If you're considering action against illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, reach out for a legal consultation.

📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000

📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com 

Note: The opinions in this blog belong to me (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you’re considering suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call violations, please contact me for a legal consultation.

Return to blog articles