Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Kansas

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of Personal Jurisdiction

“In Kansas, personal jurisdiction of courts over nonresident defendants is governed by the Kansas long-arm statute, K.S.A. Supp. 60-308(b).” (See L.S. v. C.S., 124,942, at *7 (Kan. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022).)

“A two-step analysis is used when determining whether a Kansas court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” (See id.)

“First, the court must determine whether statutes –typically K.S.A. Supp. 60-308(b) –or caselaw provide a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over a particular defendant.” (See id.)

“If there is a basis for jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, the court must next inquire if the exercise of personal jurisdiction complies with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (See id; Merriman v. Crompton Corp. (2006) 282 Kan. 433, 440; Kluin v. American Suzuki Motor Corporation (2002) 274 Kan. 888, 894.)

“That said, depending on the statutory basis relied on, these steps are coterminous as Kansas' long-arm statute permits the exercise of any jurisdiction consistent with the Kansas and United States Constitutions.” (See K.S.A. Supp. 60-308(b)(1)(L); L.S. v. C.S., 124,942, at *8 (Kan. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022).)

"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains a State's authority to bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts." (See L.S. v. C.S., 124,942, at *8 (Kan. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022); Walden v. Fiore (2014) 571 U.S. 277, 283, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12.)

“Under the due process analysis, a court must determine whether a defendant has minimum contacts with Kansas so that they should reasonably anticipate being hauled into court in Kansas.” (See id.)

“If such contacts exist, the remaining question is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of ‘fair play and substantial justice.’” (See L.S. v. C.S., 124,942, at *8 (Kan. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2022); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are governed under Kansas statutes, subsection 60-212.

The rule states in pertinent part, “every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-212(b).)

“But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

1. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;
2. lack of personal jurisdiction…”

(See id.)

“A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. If a pleading sets out a claim for relief that does not require a responsive pleading, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to that claim. No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-212(b).)

“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” (See Kan. Stat. § 60-212(c)(3).)

Standard of Review in Deciding a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

“The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants.” (See Merriman v. Crompton Corp. (2006) 282 Kan. 433, 439.)

“[T]he issue of personal jurisdiction is decided pretrial on the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, and other written materials, any factual disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor and the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” (See id.)

The appellate court “reviews a district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo, reviewing the law and facts anew.” (See Miles v. Shawnee Cnty. Dep't of Corrs., No. 124, at *9 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2022).)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

It is well settled that “the minimum requirements of K.S.A. 60-212(h) are satisfied when a defendant raises the issue of personal jurisdiction in a timely motion to dismiss. In the absence of other factors militating in favor of a finding of waiver, this suffices to preserve the issue of personal jurisdiction for appeal.” (See State v. Skinner (1999) 267 Kan. 808, 814-15.)

It is also well settled that “when a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is decided before trial on the basis of the pleadings and without an evidentiary hearing, this court must resolve all factual disputes in the plaintiff's favor and the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” (See Miles v. Shawnee Cnty. Dep't of Corrs., No. 124, at *9 (Kan. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2022); Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo (2012) 294 Kan. 258, 270, 275 P.3d 869.)