A federal court in Illinois recently transferred a Washington resident’s putative class action to Washington, finding the Northern District of Illinois lacked jurisdiction over a Washington-based defendant, Northwest Bath Specialists, LLC d/b/a Bath Planet of Seattle (“BP Seattle”), even though BP Seattle was a contracted dealer for Illinois-based BCI Acrylic, LLC d/b/a Bath Planet. Hoffman v. BCI Acrylic, LLC, 2025 WL 2896821 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2025).
Mark Hoffman, a Washington resident, filed a putative class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and Washington consumer protection laws by the Illinois-headquartered manufacturer of bathtubs and showers as well as its Washington-based seller. Hoffman alleged that his number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry and that he received at least thirty-seven calls and texts from a Washington number affiliated with Bath Planet. The calls originated from BP Seattle in Washington. BP Seattle moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the Western District of Washington. The court granted BP Seattle’s motions and transferred the case.
The court held that Hoffman was neither affiliated nor in contract with BP Seattle and therefore could not enforce the Illinois forum selection clause in the dealership agreement between Bath Planet and BP Seattle. Next, the court held that TCPA claims are considered intentional torts for jurisdictional purposes and that the conduct underlying the claims must be purposefully directed at Illinois for the court to maintain jurisdiction. The court found Hoffman’s allegations that BP Seattle purchased products from Bath Planet in Illinois insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and Hoffman did not otherwise allege any conduct by BP Seattle directed towards Illinois. To avoid bifurcating the case and for efficiency reasons, the court held that transfer was an appropriate alternative to dismissal. The court reasoned that Washington could exercise jurisdiction over Bath Planet because the alleged agency relationship between BP Seattle and Bath Planet provides a plausible basis for Bath Planet’s liability. The court additionally found that transfer was warranted under a forum non conveniens analysis because Washington was convenient to BP Seattle’s witnesses, Washington was “presumably more convenient to Hoffman and putative class members,” and the community of Washington has the strongest interest in enforcing its state consumer protection laws. Accordingly, the court granted the motion and transferred the entire action to the Western District of Washington.
[View source.]
