THREE CALLS, ZERO JURISDICTION, CASE DISMISSED: How personal jurisdiction quietly killed a TCPA case before the merits even mattered

Good morning TCPA World.

Here is a fresh one out of the Western District of Texas that is a quiet but important reminder that even when you have alleged TCPA violations, you still have to win the jurisdiction fight first.

On February 11, 2026, the court issued its decision in Ortega v. Stern Rock Capital LLC, and the result was straightforward but instructive: the case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction before the court ever touched the merits of the TCPA claim.

Let’s talk about why this matters.

The plaintiff alleged classic TCPA Do-Not-Call conduct. According to the complaint, the plaintiff had registered his cell phone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry back in 2012. Fast forward to June 30, 2025, and he allegedly received three unsolicited telemarketing calls offering business financing. The plaintiff answered one of the calls, where the caller allegedly identified himself as “Zach,” later identified as one of the defendants, who was allegedly calling on behalf of Stern Rock Capital. Based on those allegations, the plaintiff brought TCPA and Texas statutory claims.

So far, very standard TCPA fact pattern.

But the case did not turn on whether the calls happened. It turned on whether Texas courts had power over the defendants at all.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2), arguing there was no personal jurisdiction. And this is where the case really becomes useful for defense-side TCPA strategy.

The individual defendant submitted a declaration stating he was a New York resident. The company was also a New York company, with its principal place of business in New York, no offices in Texas, and no business operations in Texas. The declaration further stated that any alleged contact with Texas was incidental and not part of targeted marketing or business activity toward Texas.

The court walked through the classic personal jurisdiction framework. Because the Texas long-arm statute goes to the limits of due process, the real question was minimum contacts. The court looked at both general jurisdiction (continuous and systematic contacts) and specific jurisdiction (contacts tied to the claims).

On general jurisdiction, the plaintiff had nothing. No business presence. No systematic contacts. That theory failed quickly.

On specific jurisdiction, the plaintiff tried to rely on the three alleged telemarketing calls. But once the defendants submitted sworn jurisdictional evidence, the burden shifted back to the plaintiff. And this is where the case fell apart.

The plaintiff did not submit counter-affidavits. Did not submit evidence tying the calls to Texas-directed activity. Did not even submit evidence showing the phone number was tied to Texas. The court made it clear that once jurisdictional facts are controverted, a plaintiff cannot simply stand on the complaint. They need actual evidence.

Because the plaintiff failed to carry that burden, the court granted the Rule 12(b)(2) motion. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion? Never reached. Dismissed as moot.

Here is the bigger TCPA takeaway.

We spend a lot of time talking about consent, ATDS definitions, revocation standards, and DNC compliance. But this case is a reminder that personal jurisdiction can be a powerful early exit ramp, especially for smaller entities, newer companies, or defendants without clear forum targeting.

If you are defending TCPA cases, especially in single-plaintiff or small-call-volume scenarios, this is a play worth evaluating early. Get declarations. Lock down corporate structure. Lock down geography. Force the plaintiff to prove forum targeting with evidence, not just allegations.

If you are on the plaintiff side, the lesson is equally clear. When jurisdiction is challenged, you cannot rely on the complaint. You need call routing evidence, vendor evidence, area code ties, marketing targeting evidence, or something concrete to survive.

Three alleged calls were not enough here. Not without proof they tied the defendants to Texas in a meaningful way.

And sometimes, in TCPA litigation, jurisdiction is the whole case.

Curious to see if plaintiffs adjust strategy on jurisdictional discovery requests in cases like this going forward.

Happy Friday, TCPA World.