Hi TCPAWorld!
In Gaines v. LPC Survival, LTD, No. CV 25-9291-JFW(Ex), 2026 WL 1772724 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2026), the United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Defendant LPC Survival, Ltd.’s third-party complaint against its marketing vendor, Podium Corporation, Inc., finding that Podium, a Delaware corporation with no offices or property in California, lacked the minimum contacts necessary for the Court to exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction over it.
Plaintiff Nathan Gaines sued LPC Survival, Ltd., doing business as Berkey Filters, alleging that he texted “stop” to opt out of Berkey’s marketing texts on July 22, 2025, and that Berkey kept texting him anyway on August 21 and September 4, 2025, in violation of Section 227(c) of the TCPA and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). Berkey answered the Complaint and then turned around and sued its own vendor, Podium Corporation, Inc., as a third party, alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, express and equitable indemnity, an Unfair Competition Law claim, and a request for declaratory relief. Berkey’s theory was that it had engaged Podium to handle marketing and communication functions on its behalf under a written Order Form renewal agreement running through November 2025, and that if Berkey is on the hook to Plaintiff, Podium should be on the hook to Berkey.
Podium moved to dismiss the third-party complaint on three separate grounds: (1) lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2), (2) improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) based on a Utah forum selection clause in its Terms of Service, and (3) failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court rejected the venue argument entirely, holding that a forum selection clause cannot be enforced through a Rule 12(b)(3) motion under Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), and must instead be raised through a Section 1404(a) motion to transfer. The Court never reached the Rule 12(b)(6) argument either, since the jurisdictional ruling disposed of the motion first.
The Court made quick work of general jurisdiction. Podium is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lehi, Utah, with no offices or real estate in California, and Berkey never even addressed the point, which the Court treated as a concession. Specific jurisdiction fared no better. Berkey’s third-party complaint offered only the conclusory assertion that Podium “transacts business in this judicial district” and has a “continuous, systematic, and substantial presence” there, language the Court found insufficient standing alone. Podium backed up its motion with a declaration from its Vice President of Customer Success explaining that Berkey, not Podium, controlled the content of the texts and the phone numbers they were sent to. Berkey never submitted a competing declaration or any evidence to rebut that showing. Faced with an unrebutted factual record and a complaint built on conclusions rather than facts, the Court held that Berkey failed to carry its burden on the first two prongs of the Ninth Circuit’s specific jurisdiction test and dismissed Podium from the case under Rule 12(b)(2).
The Court was not finished, though, and this is the part that deserves a closer look. The Court’s Standing Order required each party to lodge a Proposed Statement of Decision within two days of the reply deadline, and neither Berkey nor Plaintiff ever filed one, even after the April 15, 2026 deadline passed. Under Local Rule 7-12, failure to file a required document “may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion,” and the Standing Order went a step further, stating flatly that failure to lodge the Proposed Statement “will result in the denial or granting of the motion.” The Court treated that omission as an independent, alternative basis for granting Podium’s motion in full, separate and apart from the jurisdictional analysis.
The key takeaway here is twofold. On the merits, this is a clean example of a vendor defeating personal jurisdiction where the underlying conduct, sending the actual text messages, was controlled entirely by its customer rather than by the vendor itself, and where the customer’s complaint relied on conclusory jurisdictional allegations instead of facts. But the order is also a reminder that procedural housekeeping matters. Calendar your district’s standing orders as carefully as you brief the merits, because a missed filing deadline can give a court an independent basis to grant a motion that might otherwise have been contested.
We will keep you posted, TCPAWorld!