A District Court judge in Oklahoma has denied a renewed motion to dismiss in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act and privacy case after finding that newly added factual allegations were sufficient, at least at the pleading stage, to establish personal jurisdiction and venue, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.
The background: The case was initially dismissed last year after the judge concluded the plaintiff failed to establish any meaningful connection between the defendant’s alleged calling activity and Oklahoma. At that time, the complaint relied largely on the fact that calls came from phone numbers with a 405 area code, which the court found insufficient on its own. The court dismissed the claims but allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to amend.
- In the amended complaint, the plaintiff narrowed the case to two claims: alleged violations of the TCPA and a state law claim for invasion of privacy. More importantly, the amended filing added factual allegations aimed squarely at jurisdiction and venue. Those included allegations that the plaintiff obtained his 405 number while in Oklahoma, received the first call while physically present in Oklahoma City, and that the defendant used multiple spoofed 405 numbers to make the calls appear local.
- The plaintiff further alleged that the area code was intentionally targeted to increase answer rates among Oklahoma residents.
The ruling: In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Scott L. Palk of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma made clear that the defendant’s arguments failed to engage with the amended allegations or relevant case law. The judge criticized the defendant for relying on a single sentence from the prior dismissal order while ignoring the broader context and the court’s express statement that additional allegations “could bear on the jurisdictional inquiry if properly pleaded.”
- Judge Palk also rejected the venue argument, emphasizing that federal law does not require most of the events to occur in a district, only a substantial part. The judge noted that the first call was allegedly received in Oklahoma by someone physically present there and that the defendant offered no authority showing this was insufficient.
- In a pointed reminder to litigants, the court stated it would not “do that work” for a party that fails to cite authority or meaningfully analyze the law. As a result, the TCPA and intrusion-upon-seclusion claims will proceed, and the defendant has been ordered to file an answer.
