In Lee v. Branch Banking & Trust Company, Civ No. 18-21876-CIV-Scola, 2018 WL 5633995 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018), Judge Scola held that the SCOTUS’ decision in Bristol-Meyers did not bar the exercise of jurisdiction over non-resident putative class members in a TCPA class action.
Next, BB&T argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bristol-Myers bars the Court from exercising personal jurisdiction over the claims of putative class members who are not residents of Florida. (ECF No. 15, at 13-17.) The Court disagrees. Bristol-Myers involved a “mass action” brought in California state court by 678 individually named plaintiffs from 34 different states against a nonresident defendant. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., San Francisco Cty. 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1777-78 (2017) (noting that 86 of the plaintiffs were California residents). The Court faced the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause allows a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over named, non-resident plaintiffs’ claims asserted against non-resident defendants, where no connection exists between those claims and the forum state. Applying “settled principles regarding specific jurisdiction,” the Court held that the California court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the non-resident plaintiffs’ claims violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 1781-82. In so holding, the Court reaffirmed that “[w]hat is needed [for specific jurisdiction]—and what is missing here—is a connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.” Id. at 1781. . . In the wake of Bristol-Myers, a number of district courts have confronted that question and the results are mixed. BB&T cites cases extending Bristol-Myers’ holding to class actions. See, e.g., Practice Mgmt. Support Servs., Inc. v. Cirque du Soleil, Inc., 301 F. Supp. 3d 840, 864-65 (N.D. Ill. 2018) class decertified on other grounds, 2018 WL 3659349 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2018); Maclin v. Reliable Reports of Tex., Inc., No. 1:17-cv-2612, 2018 WL 1468821 (N.D. Oh. Mar. 26, 2018); (ECF No. 15 at 15-17 (collecting cases).) Numerous other Courts hold the opposite. See, e.g., Becker v. HBN Media, Inc., 314 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2018) (Altonaga, J.); Tickling Keys, Inc. v. Transam. Fin. Advisors, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1350-51 (M.D. Fla. 2018); Molock, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 126-27 interlocutory appeal certified in 317 F. Supp. 3d 1, *5-*6 (D.D.C. 2018). The Court is persuaded by the growing body of law amongst district courts in this Circuit holding that Bristol-Myers does not bar claims of non-resident members of a putative class from asserting claims in federal court under the TCPA. . . .So the Court declines to extend Bristol–Myers to the class action context. See, e.g., Fitzhenry–Russell, 2017 WL 4224723, at *4 (declining to extend Bristol–Myers to a class action at the motion to dismiss stage); In re Chinese–Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liability Litig., No. 09-2047, 2017 WL 5971622, at *12–13 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 2017) (same).