Suzanne Degnen, D.M.D., P.C. v. DentalFix RX, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Dental Fix RX LLCs Motion to Stay 21 is GRANTED and this case is STAYED until final rulings are issued by the FCC on Dental Fix RX LLCs Petition for Retroactive Waiver, and on any appeals filed in connection with the ruling. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that every ninety (90) days, beginning November 4, 2016, Dental Fix RX LLC shall advise the Court of the status of the proceedings before the FCC and any appeal filed in connection therewi th. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification 25 is DENIED without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff may refile this motion, if necessary, after the stay is lifted and pursuant to a Case Management Order entered by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant David Anthony Lopezs Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or in the Alternative for Failure to State a Claim 12 is GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED as to Defendant Lopez without prejudice. Case stayed., Terminate Case. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 8/5/16. (KKS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SUZANNE DEGNEN, D.M.D., P.C., d/b/a
SUNSET TOWER FAMILY DENTISTRY,
DENTAL FIX RX LLC, d/b/a/
DENTAL FIX RX, et al.,
No. 4:15-CV-1372 JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the following motions: Defendant David Anthony
Lopez’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or in the Alternative for Failure to
State a Claim (Doc. No. 12); Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery
and to Stay Briefing and Ruling on Defendant Lopez’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 16); Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No. 25); and
Defendant Dental Fix RX LLC’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 21). The motions are fully briefed
and ready for disposition.
Plaintiff, Suzanne Degnen, D.M.D., P.C. (“Plaintiff”) brings this putative class action
against Defendants Dental Fix Rx, LLC (“Dental Fix”) and David Anthony Lopez (“Lopez”),
Dental Fix’s Chief Executive Officer, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the “Junk Fax Act,” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), and
specifically for sending a fax advertisement without a proper opt-out notice as required by 47
C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4). (Amended Class Action Junk-Fax Petition (“AC”), Doc. No. 8 at ¶¶ 1227). The action was timely removed to this Court on September 3, 2015. (Doc. No. 1)
Motion for class certification
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with her state court complaint “to avoid any
attempt by Defendants to “pick off” Plaintiff through an offer of judgment or individual
settlement offer. (Doc. No. 25 at 2-3) (citing cases). The Court will deny the motion to certify
without prejudice to refiling at the appropriate time. Any offer of judgment made only to the
named Plaintiff before the Court rules on a motion for class certification filed in accordance with
a case management order will be stricken. See Prater v. Medicredit, Inc., 301 F.R.D. 398, 401
(E.D. Mo. 2014); Johnson v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 276 F.R.D. 330, 334 (D. Minn. 2011).
Motion to dismiss
Defendant Lopez moves to dismiss the case against him for lack of personal jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). He argues he is not
amenable to service under Missouri’s long arm statute (Doc. No. 17 at 4-5) and lacks sufficient
minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy due process (id. at 5-8). Alternatively, Lopez argues
Plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to allege any wrongful conduct by him,
other than the allegations that impermissibly lump him together with the other defendant, Dental
Fix. (Id. at 9-10) In support of his motion to dismiss, Lopez submits his declaration stating that
he has not directed any activities towards the State of Missouri or its residents. (Lopez Decl.,
Doc. No. 17-1 at ¶¶ 4, 5) He also states he did not: (i) create the subject fax; (ii) send the subject
fax to Plaintiff’s office; (iii) direct anyone to send the subject fax to Plaintiff’s office; and/or (iv)
have knowledge that the subject fax was sent to Plaintiff’s office at the time it was sent. (Id. at ¶¶
6, 7) Further, Lopez states he does not personally: (i) create any faxes similar to the subject fax
that are sent by Dental Fix; (ii) send any faxes similar to the subject fax that are sent by Dental
Fix; (iii) each time, direct anyone to send each fax similar to the subject fax that is sent by Dental
Fix; and/or (iv) have specific knowledge each time a fax similar to the subject fax is sent by
Dental Fix. (Id. at ¶ 8) In response to Lopez’s motion, Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to
conduct jurisdictional discovery and stay briefing on his motion.
In its complaint, Plaintiff alleges the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants
collectively because “they sent at least one illegal fax into Missouri, … transact[ed] business
within [Missouri], … made contracts within [Missouri], … committed tortious acts within
[Missouri], including conversion of fax recipients’ paper, ink, and toner, and/or … otherwise
have sufficient minimum contacts with [Missouri].” (AC at ¶ 10) With respect to Lopez
individually, Plaintiff’s sole allegation is that Lopez resides in Florida and that his business card
identifies him as the “Chief Executive Officer” of Dental Fix Rx, LLC. (AC at ¶ 5) “To survive a
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing
that personal jurisdiction exists, which is accomplished by pleading sufficient facts ‘to support a
reasonable inference that the defendant[ ] can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state.’” K–V
Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 591-92 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Dever v.
Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir. 2004)). This bare allegation is insufficient
to justify the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over Lopez. Having a business card
identifying Lopez as the CEO of Dental Fix is not evidence of contacts with Missouri and does
not give rise to the inference that he purposefully directed activities at Missouri that caused
Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
Jurisdictional discovery is inappropriate when the plaintiff pushes for jurisdiction based
only on bare assertions. “When a plaintiff offers only speculation or conclusory assertions about
contacts with a forum state, a court is within its discretion in denying jurisdictional discovery.”
Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM–Papst St. Georgen Gmbh & Co., KG, 646 F.3d 589, 598 (8th Cir.
2011) (alteration in original; internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 1st Tech.,
LLC v. Digital Gaming Sols. S.A., No. 4:08 CV 586 DDN, 2008 WL 4790347, at *6 (E.D. Mo.
Oct. 31, 2008) (“Where a plaintiff's claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated
and based on bare allegations in the face of specific denials made by defendants, the Court need
not permit even limited discovery.”); Osborn & Barr Communications, Inc. v. EMC Corp., Inc.,
No. 4:08CV87 CAS, 2008 WL 341664, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 5, 2008) (jurisdictional discovery is
not appropriate vehicle to uncover evidence supporting jurisdiction; it is plaintiff’s obligation “to
undertake at least enough minimal investigation prior to filing a complaint as to permit it to
allege a basis for jurisdiction in the complaint.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery will be denied and Lopez’s motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction will be granted. The dismissal will be without prejudice
since Plaintiff may have an opportunity to obtain further discovery at a later point in this
litigation and seek leave to amend.
Motion to stay
Dental Fix requests this action be stayed pending resolution of its Petition for Retroactive
Waiver (the “Petition,” Doc. No. 22-1) filed with the Federal Communications Commission
(“FCC”) on September 11, 2015. Dental Fix argues that the FCC’s determination of its Petition
will “resolve the threshold legal issue in this case – whether Dental Fix and its agents were
required to include an opt-out notice under the TCPA on the fax sent to Plaintiff, which was sent
with Plaintiff’s prior express consent.” Thus, a stay would “promote justice, conserve the
resources of the Court and the parties, and avoid inconsistent rulings.” (Doc. No. 22 at 4)
In support of its motion, Dental Fix relies on Nack v. Walburg, 715 F.3d 680, 682 (8th
Cir. 2013), wherein the Eighth Circuit recognized that the Administrative Orders Review Act
(“Hobbs Act”), 28 U.S.C. § 2342 et seq., precluded it from hearing challenges to an FCC
regulation at issue and instructed that, on remand, the district court “may entertain any requests
to stay proceedings for pursuit of administrative determination of the issues raised.” (Doc. No.
22 at 6) Dental Fix asserts it will suffer substantial hardship if a stay is not issued, because it will
have to engage in discovery and briefing of issues that will likely be mooted by the FCC’s grant
of a retroactive waiver. (Id. at 5) In contrast, Dental Fix asserts that Plaintiff will suffer no
damage from a stay because the maximum money damages for Plaintiff is fixed at $1,500 per fax
and because Dental Fix is collecting and preserving the available documents and data. (Id.)
Dental Fix further argues that a retroactive waiver, when granted, together with evidence of
Plaintiff’s express consent and permission to send the fax at issue, will operate as a complete
defense to Plaintiff’s TCPA claim. (Id.)
Dental Fix also points to numerous decisions from other district courts, including the
Eastern District of Missouri, granting stays in TCPA actions similar to this one, including two
TCPA cases filed by Plaintiff herein, pending the FCC’s determination of the defendants’
petitions for retroactive waiver of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iv), i.e., Nack v. Walburg, No. 10cv-00478 AGF, 2013 WL 4860104 *1 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 12, 2013) (staying case until final rulings
are issued by the FCC on defendants’ petition for declaratory ruling and/or waiver); St. Louis
Heart Center, Inc. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 12-cv-2224 JCH, 2013 WL 3988671
(E.D. Mo. July 17, 2013); St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Gilead Palo Alto, Inc., No. 13-cv-958
JAR, 2013 WL 5436651 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2013); Suzanne Degnen, D.M.D., P.C. v. Free
Continuing Education Association, LLC, No. 4:15-cv-527-RLW (E.D. Mo. June 17, 2015);
Suzanne Degnen, D.M.D., P.C. v. Megadent, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-929-ERW (E.D. Mo. August 31,
2015). (Doc. No. 22 at 6)
Plaintiff opposes a stay, arguing the FCC has no authority to “waive” violations of the
regulations prescribed under the TCPA in a private right of action, and that doing so would
violate the separation of powers. (Doc. No. 27) In light of the Eighth Circuit’s suggestion in
Nack, 715 F.3d 680, and in the interests of reaching consistent results in similar TCPA cases, the
Court will grant Dental Fix’s motion to stay this case. The Court finds Plaintiff will not be
unduly prejudiced by a stay.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Dental Fix RX LLC’s Motion to Stay 
is GRANTED and this case is STAYED until final rulings are issued by the FCC on Dental Fix
RX LLC’s Petition for Retroactive Waiver, and on any appeals filed in connection with the
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that every ninety (90) days, beginning November 4,
2016, Dental Fix RX LLC shall advise the Court of the status of the proceedings before the FCC
and any appeal filed in connection therewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification  is
DENIED without prejudice as premature. Plaintiff may refile this motion, if necessary, after the
stay is lifted and pursuant to a Case Management Order entered by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant David Anthony Lopez’s Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or in the Alternative for Failure to State a Claim  is
GRANTED and the complaint is DISMISSED as to Defendant Lopez without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery and to Stay Briefing and Ruling on Defendant Lopez’s Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction  is DENIED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this
Dated this 5th day of August, 2016.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?