In Williams v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., 2017 WL 492968 (N.D. Ala. 2017), Judge Haikala described how the TCPA could confer jurisdiction on an out-of-state defendant for an out-of-state plaintiff.
As the Court has explained, the Tennessee plaintiffs’ claims arise from Santander’s practice of calling borrowers’ cell phones to collect debt. Because of the mobile nature of cell phones, Santander cannot predict where a borrower will be located when he or she receives a call from Santander on his or her cell phone. Thus, each time Santander calls a borrower’s cell phone, the company knows or reasonably should know that it may have to litigate a TCPA claim in any state as a result of that call. The Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Santander with respect to the Tennessee plaintiffs’ claims, in conjunction with its exercise of jurisdiction over the Alabama plaintiffs’ claims, is therefore consistent with the constitutional principles that underlie the law of personal jurisdiction. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)) (requiring courts to consider “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” when deciding whether to exercise personal jurisdiction).