Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mark Anthony Ortega, a Texas resident proceeding pro se, sued New York-based Stern Rock Capital, L.L.C., and Zachary Neman. Ortega alleged that Neman, acting for Stern Rock, repeatedly called Ortega’s cell phone to offer business-financing services, violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Texas law.
The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of specific personal jurisdiction and submitted a declaration from Neman. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that the declaration relieved it of any obligation to accept Ortega’s jurisdictional allegations as true and that Ortega had failed to support those allegations with evidence. The court dismissed the complaint, and Ortega appealed.
The Court’s Holding
Reviewing de novo, 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. Because those jurisdictional allegations remained uncontroverted, the district court erred by refusing to accept them as true when deciding whether Ortega had made a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction.
The panel did not decide whether the allegations ultimately establish specific personal jurisdiction over either defendant. It vacated the dismissal and remanded for the district court to resolve that question in the first instance under the correct standard.
Key Takeaways
- When a district court decides personal jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, uncontroverted jurisdictional allegations must be accepted as true.
- A defendant’s declaration does not displace allegations that the declaration does not actually contradict.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated the dismissal but expressed no view on whether Texas may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the plaintiff-friendly prima facie standard governing personal-jurisdiction disputes resolved without an evidentiary hearing. Courts must identify which allegations the defendant’s evidence actually controverts rather than treating the submission of a declaration as requiring evidentiary proof of every jurisdictional fact.
The ruling gives Ortega another opportunity to establish jurisdiction, but it does not determine whether calls allegedly received in Texas are sufficient to connect these New York defendants to the forum for purposes of the asserted TCPA and state-law claims.