Background
Mark Anthony Ortega, a Texas resident proceeding without counsel, sued Stern Rock Capital, L.L.C. and Zachary Neman, both located in New York. Ortega alleged that Neman, acting for Stern Rock, called his cell phone several times to offer business-financing services, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Texas law.
The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of specific personal jurisdiction without holding an evidentiary hearing. Relying on statements in Neman’s declaration, the court concluded that it did not have to accept Ortega’s jurisdictional allegations as true and that Ortega had failed to submit evidence establishing a prima facie case for jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Neman’s declaration did not controvert Ortega’s allegations that he resided in Texas, received the calls in Texas, and had the cell phone number at issue. The district court therefore erred by failing to accept those uncontroverted allegations as true when deciding whether Ortega had made a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction.
The appellate court did not decide whether the defendants were subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Texas. It vacated the dismissal and remanded so the district court could address that question in the first instance under the proper standard.
Key Takeaways
- When no evidentiary hearing is held, a court assessing a prima facie jurisdictional showing must accept the plaintiff’s uncontroverted jurisdictional allegations as true.
- A defendant’s declaration does not displace allegations that the declaration does not actually controvert.
- The Fifth Circuit resolved only the district court’s methodological error, leaving the ultimate personal-jurisdiction determination open on remand.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the evidentiary framework governing Rule 12(b)(2) motions decided without a hearing. District courts may consider affidavits and other evidence, but they cannot disregard jurisdictional allegations that the defendant’s evidence leaves unchallenged.
For litigants in TCPA and other communications-based cases, the locations of the plaintiff and the allegedly unlawful calls may remain relevant to the minimum-contacts analysis. This ruling does not establish that those facts are sufficient here; it requires the district court to evaluate them under the correct standard.