Danganan, et al. v. Guardian
Protection Services – Pa. S.Ct. – February 21, 2018
Non-resident plaintiff permitted to
sue business headquartered in Pennsylvania, despite lack of nexus between this
state and the transaction/injury in question.
Plaintiff’s claims were brought
exclusively under the Pa. consumer protection law, 73 P.S. 201-1, et seq.,
under which there is “no textual basis” for imposing any nexus requirement. There are no residency or geographic
restrictions in the statutory definitions of “person” or “trade and commerce.”
In this case, a homeowner in
Washinton, D.C., entered into a three-year contract with a Pennsylvania company
for home security services. Before the
end of the contractual term, the homeowner moved to California and notified the
company of his intent to cancel the contract.
When the company refused to honor
the cancellation and continued to bill the homeowner, the latter sued in CCP
Philadelphia. The company moved to
dismiss the case, claiming that non-Pennsylvania residents could only sue under
UTPCPL if there was a sufficient nexus between the transaction/injury and the
forum state (Pennsylvania), such that the improper conduct primarily and
substantially occurred in Pennsylvania.
The Court rejected this position, as set out above.
