Texas Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendants Who Contracted with Texas Company to Place Collection Calls in T

[sohanuzzaman56]

The Eastern District of Texas recently adopted a report from Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak finding that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over an attorney and law firm in a pro se plaintiff’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act lawsuit. The case is Cunningham v. Mark D. Guidubaldi & Assocs.

The TCPA suit was filed by Craig Cunningham, a Tennessee serial plaintiff who calls himself a“debt collection terrorist.” Defendant Mark D. Guidubaldi & Associates LLC, doing business as Protection Legal architect data Group (“PLG”) is alleged to be a Texas entity that placed calls to Texas residents on the moving defendants’ behalf. Defendants Sanford J. Feder (an individual attorney) who resides in New

Jersey and Feder’s law firm, the Law Office of Sanford J. Feder, LLC, which is organized under and governed by the laws of New Jersey, is alleged to have contracted with PLG to place the calls at issue in this case. While the parties did not dispute the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over PLG, the Feder defendants argued that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Feder and his law firm, which did not have employees, offices, or bank accounts in Texas.

Cunningham argued that Feder and his law firm “conducted business in a common enterprise and joint venture” in Texas by contracting with PLG to place calls to Texas residents. The Court held that the contractual relationship and the calls are not enough for either general or specific jurisdiction.