TRAPPED IN DETROIT: Dobronski has TCPA Defendant on the Hook Personally for Allegedly Illegal Faxes That Defendant May Not Have Even Sent

2 Comments

Quick one for you today on the difference between standing and jurisdiction.

The two concepts are similar– and in some cases overlap– but they are distinct.

Standing refers to the Plaintiff’s ability to bring a certain claim.

Jurisdiction refers to the Court’s ability to hear a specific matter. And there are two kinds of jurisdiction– subject matter and personal. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to hear cases of a certain type. Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to hear cases against particular parties.

The overlap between standing and jurisdiction is most complete when considering “subject matter jurisdiction” over a party who may not have been directly harmed by the defendant.

For instance in Dobronski v. Training Force, 2025 WL 1427042 (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2025) Dobronski sued a company and its two owners for allegedy sending illegal faxes to him.

Rather than challenge standing of Dobrnski to sue them personally, Defendants moved to dismiss the individual defendants arguing the court lacked standing over them.  However since Dobronski had alleged the faxes at issue were directed to his Michigan fax number an as the individual defendants “personally directed, participated in, and authorized the unsolicited advertisements” they were stuck in the case in Michigan even though they resided far far away in Florida.

Its as simple as that folks.

Interestingly, the defendants denied ever having sent the faxes at issue but the Court correctly focused on the allegations– which the court viewed as sufficient to determine jurisdiction.

Interestingly had standing been challenged there is an argument the case should have been dismissed since Dobronski cannot alleged his way around the fact that the defendants did not send the faxes. And since it is Dobronski’s burden to show the injury is “fairly traceable” to the defendant arguable the case should have been tossed.

Standing vs. Jurisdiction. The difference matters folks.

Regardless, Dobronski’s hot streak continues. And this is yet ANOTHER reminder of the PERSONAL LIABILITY risks presented by the TCPA!

If YOU want to stay out of trouble be sure to request a copy of the Troutman Amin, LLP 2025 TCPA Annual Review, presented by Contact Center Compliance!

WE DID IT!: WE UPDATED OUT 2025 TCPA ANNUAL REVIEW AND YOU SIMPLY MUST HAVE ONE RIGHT NOW!

Chat soon.

Discover more from TCPAWorld

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories:

Published by Eric "Czar" Troutman

The Czar of TCPAWorld Eric Troutman is one of the country’s prominent class action defense lawyers and is nationally recognized in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) litigation and compliance. He has served as lead defense counsel in more than 70 national TCPA class actions and has litigated nearly a thousand individual TCPA cases in his role as national strategic litigation counsel for major banks and finance companies. He also helps industry participants build TCPA-compliant processes, policies, and systems. Eric has built a national litigation practice based upon deep experience, rigorous analysis and extraordinary responsiveness. Eric and his team feel equally at home litigating multibillion dollar telecommunications class actions in federal court as they do developing and executing national litigation strategies for institutions facing an onslaught of individual TCPA matters. They thrive in each of these roles – delivering consistently excellent results – while never losing sight of the client experience. While many firms now tout TCPA expertise, Eric has been there from the beginning. He built one of the country’s first TCPA-only defense teams and began serving as national TCPA counsel for his clients nearly a decade ago. This perspective allows him to swiftly develop the right litigation strategies for dealing with recurring problems, without wasting time on tactics that are bound to fail. Eric’s rich historical perspective and encyclopedic knowledge of the TCPA landscape also make him an invaluable resource to institutional compliance teams struggling to comply with the shifting regulatory landscape. No task is too small – or too big. Indeed, Eric and his team have helped build TCPA-compliant systems and processes for some of the largest and most complex corporate entities in the country. He commonly works with in-house compliance counsel to build and implement enterprise and business-line specific TCPA solutions, performs TCPA audits and drafts and reviews proposed TCPA policies and procedures. He and his team also have the technical expertise necessary to assist call centers seeking to develop TCPA-resistant call path architecture or to modify existing telephony and software integration to better insulate from potential TCPA exposure. Eric has built a reputation for thought leadership. An avid blogger and speaker, he has been at the forefront of the industry’s effort to push for clarity and a return to sanity for the TCPA for years. He was selected to advocate for the financial services industry on important TCPA issues before the Federal Communications Commission and co-authored the nation’s only comprehensive practice guide on TCPA defense. In his spare time, Eric leads defense teams representing banks and other financial services companies in consumer finance litigation matters. He has experience representing clients in UCC, TILA, RESPA FCRA, CCRA, CLRA, FDCPA, RFDCPA and FCCPA claims, as well as in fraud and bank operations issues.

2 Comments

  1. Czar, send me a thick stack of your business cards. I can attach them to each summons and complaint along with a personal note of recommendation. 🙂

    Reply

    1. Comment of the year, right here, right from the source. nice play, Mark. “Bricks Thrown Through Your Glass? Call Al’s Glass” (Farside)

      Reply

Leave a Reply