Hauling out of jurisdiction telemarketers into your local court - A Federal Judge has thoughts
- Peter Schneider
- 4 hours ago
- 5 min read
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.
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.
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.