Russell v Medical Business Bureau

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 7/19/13. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MELODY A. RUSSELL,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

MEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC,

*

Defendant.
*

*

*

Civil Action No. RDB-12-2983

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Melody A. Russell (“Plaintiff” or “Russell”) brought this action against
Defendant Medical Business Bureau, LLC (“Defendant” or “MBB”), alleging improper debt
collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692,
et seq. (“FDCPA”); the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, MD. CODE ANN., COM.
LAW, § 14-201, et seq. (“MCDCA”); and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, MD.
CODE ANN., COM. LAW, § 13-301, et seq. (“MCPA”). See Compl., ECF No. 1. Currently
pending before this Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction1 and for failure to state a claim for relief, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 8). The parties’ submissions have been
reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2004). For the reasons
stated below, Defendant Medical Business Bureau, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

1 While the Defendant did not reference Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, personal
jurisdiction is to be challenged under this rule.

1

(ECF No. 8) is GRANTED for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s claims against
MBB are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
In ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, this Court accepts as true the facts
alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc., 658 F.3d 388, 390 (4th Cir. 2011).
Plaintiff Melody A. Russell (“Plaintiff” or “Russell”) resides in Glen Burnie, Maryland, and is
a consumer under the terms of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). See
Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5. Defendant Medical Business Bureau, LLC (“Defendant” or “MBB”), while
not a licensed collection agency in the State of Maryland, is a debt collector under the terms
of the FDCPA and a collector under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act
(“MCDCA”). Id. ¶¶ 4, 6-7. Defendant lists 1460 Renaissance Drive, Park Ridge, Illinois,
60068 as its mailing address and principal place of business. Id. ¶ 4.
While Plaintiff claims that Defendant communicated with her or others within the
year prior to her filing of the Complaint “in connection with collection efforts with regard to
Plaintiff’s disputed personal debt,” Id. ¶ 8, she specifically claims that she contacted an agent
of the Defendant on or about August 29, 2012 and spoke with that collection agent. Id. ¶
10. Plaintiff informed the Defendant that her debt was paid in full, but Defendant, having
allegedly “failed to advise the Plaintiff of the required notice pursuant to § 1692e(11),”2

2 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11) prohibits:
The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in
addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral
communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any
information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent
communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph
shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action. 

2

threatened to adversely affect Plaintiff’s credit rating, claiming that her debt had already been
reported to the credit bureaus. Id. ¶¶ 11-13. The Complaint very specifically alleges that
Russell, on her own initiative, contacted an agent of Medical Business Bureau.
Plaintiff filed the subject Complaint in this Court (ECF No. 1) on October 9, 2012,
alleging that Defendant’s “collection efforts” violated the FDCPA, that Defendant’s “acts
and practices as to Plaintiff” violated the MCDCA, and that Defendant committed “unfair
or deceptive acts or practices” in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act
(“MCPA”). On January 14, 2013, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF
No. 8) for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief. Despite
receiving an extended filing deadline (ECF No. 10), Plaintiff has not filed a Response to
Defendant’s Motion.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), when a defendant files a motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving grounds for jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 59–60 (4th Cir.
1993). This requires the plaintiff to produce competent evidence to sustain jurisdiction.
Nichols v. G.D. Searle & Co., 783 F.Supp. 233, 235 (D. Md. 1992). If the court is deciding the
issue without a hearing, the plaintiff is only required to make a prima facie showing of
jurisdiction. Mylan, 2 F.3d at 60. In considering “all relevant pleading allegations in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff,” the court must draw all “reasonable inferences” in the
plaintiff’s favor. Id. at 60–62.

3

A federal district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
defendant “if two conditions [are] satisfied: (1) the exercise of jurisdiction must be
authorized under the state’s long-arm statute; and (2) the exercise of the jurisdiction must
comport with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Carefirst of Md.,
Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Christian Sci. Bd. of
Dirs. of the First Church of Christ v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209, 215 (4th Cir. 2001)); see also Mackey v.
Compass Mktg., 892 A.2d 479, 486 (Md. 2006). The Court of Appeals of Maryland recently
reiterated this two-step process. Mackey, 892 A.2d at 486; see also id. at 493 n.6 (explaining
that the court’s prior statements that “our statutory inquiry merges with our constitutional
examination” does not “mean . . . that it is now permissible to simply dispense with analysis
under the long-arm statute”). Thus, a plaintiff must “identify a specific Maryland statutory
provision authorizing jurisdiction.” Ottenheimer Publishers, Inc., v. Playmore Inc., 158 F. Supp. 2d
649, 652 (D. Md. 2001). Although it is preferable for a plaintiff to identify the statute
authorizing jurisdiction in its complaint, a plaintiff alternatively may reference the applicable
statute in its response to a defendant’s motion to dismiss. Johansson Corp. v. Bowness Constr.
Co., 304 F. Supp. 2d 701, 7104 n. 1 (D. Md. 2004). In order for the exercise of personal
jurisdiction to comport with due process, a non-resident defendant must have sufficient
“minimum contacts” with the forum state that requiring it to defend itself within the forum
state “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).3

3 The standard of review under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted has
been well summarized by the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). In light of this Court’s rulings with respect to lack of
personal jurisdiction, this Court does not address the failure to state a claim argument.

4

ANALYSIS
Defendant MBB argues that this Court lacks both general and specific personal
jurisdiction over MBB, because MBB has no connections to Maryland aside from the one
phone call that Plaintiff, a Maryland citizen, claims to have made to MBB. See Br. in Supp.
Mot. to Dismiss p. 6, ECF No. 8-1. According to Defendant, MBB did not engage in the
pervasive, persistent, extensive, or systematic contacts necessary to establish general personal
jurisdiction or to bring MBB within the terms of the Maryland long-arm statute.4 Id.
Furthermore, MBB did not purposely direct its activities toward residents of Maryland, as
required to establish specific personal jurisdiction. Id. Plaintiff has not responded to
Defendant’s arguments.
In order for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant,
two conditions must be satisfied: “(1) the exercise of jurisdiction must be authorized under
the state’s long-arm statute and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with the due
process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Carefirst, 334 F.3d at 396. The
analysis of personal jurisdiction begins with a recognition of the distinction between general

4 The Maryland Long–Arm Statute, Md. Code. ANN., CTS. & JUD. PROC. § 6-103, provides that:
(b) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who directly or by an agent:
(1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State;
(2) Contracts to supply goods, food, services, or manufactured products in the State;
(3) Causes tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in the State;
(4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission
outside the State if he regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other
persistent course of conduct in the State or derives substantial revenue from goods,
food, services, or manufactured products used or consumed in the State;
(5) Has an interest in, uses, or possesses real property in the State; or
(6) Contracts to insure or act as surety for, or on, any person, property, risk,
contract, obligation, or agreement located, executed, or to be performed within the
State at the time the contract is made, unless the parties otherwise provide in
writing. 

5

jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction.

General and specific jurisdiction require separate

analyses to determine whether the exercise of in personam jurisdiction also comports with
“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316. While
personal jurisdiction can be based on either general or specific jurisdiction, the distinction is
important.

General jurisdiction arises where the defendant maintains “continuous and

systematic” contacts with the forum state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466
U.S. 408, 414–16 (1984). In contrast, due process allows an assertion of specific personal
jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only if the defendant has “purposefully directed
his activities at residents of the forum state . . . and the litigation results from alleged injuries
that arise out of or relate to those activities,” unless the exercise of jurisdiction would offend
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 472 (1985) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
In Ritz Camera Centers, Inc. v. Wentling Camera Shops, Inc., 982 F. Supp. 350, 354 (D. Md.
1997), this Court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of general and specific personal
jurisdiction where Defendant’s contacts with Maryland “consisted entirely of telephonic
(voice and facsimile) exchanges and mail correspondence from without the state.” In its
analysis, this Court cited its previous decision in Leather Masters (PVT) Ltd. v. Giampier Ltd.,
836 F. Supp. 328, 331 (D. Md. 1993), where it held that “without more, communications
made from outside the State to a Maryland resident are not enough to justify the exercise of
personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.” Moreover, in Coating Engineers, Ltd. v.
Electric Motor Repair, Co., 826 F. Supp. 147, 149 (D. Md. 1993), this Court held that a

6

defendant’s telephone conversations with a party in Maryland did not constitute purposeful
activity within Maryland to confer jurisdiction under the Maryland long-arm statute.
Here, Plaintiff alleges even less contact between Defendant and the State of Maryland
than did the plaintiff in Ritz Camera. In contrast to the telephonic and mail exchanges in Ritz
Camera, Plaintiff alleges only that she communicated with Defendant MBB through one
telephone conversation, which she initiated.

Following this Court’s precedent in Ritz

Camera, Leather Masters, and Coating Engineers, it is clear that one telephone conversation,
which the Defendant did not even initiate, cannot justify an exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Moreover, Defendant submitted the sworn affidavit of Terri Blye, the Vice President
of Production at MBB, who states that MBB “does not conduct or solicit business in the
State of Maryland” and “does not have and never has had a place of business or employees
in Maryland.” See Aff. Terri Blye p. 1, ECF No 8-2. Blye further claims that MBB “does not
solicit Maryland residents’ debts for collection,” “does not place debt collection calls to
Maryland,” and “owns no property in the State of Maryland.” Id. Finally, Blye states that
MBB “performs no services for companies or businesses located within the State of
Maryland,” “did not send any correspondence to Melody Russell in Maryland,” and “did not
place any outgoing telephone calls to the State of Maryland to contact Melody Russell.”
In light of the evidence before this Court, Plaintiff has not made a prima facie showing
of either general or specific personal jurisdiction because she has not alleged that Defendant
had continuous contacts with the State of Maryland or that Defendant purposely directed its
activities at Maryland residents.

Finding that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction,

Defendant MBB’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED
7

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendant Medical Business Bureau, LLC’s Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED for lack of personal jurisdiction, and
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: July 19, 2013
_/s/____________________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

8