Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Missouri

Background

“A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from any one of the following activities, performed by the nonresident: (1) Transacting any business in this state.” (See Community Trust Bank v. Anderson (2002) 87 S.W.3d 58, 61.)

“The law is clear that a [d]efendant may consent to the personal jurisdiction of the [c]ourt.” (See Witherspoon v. Thurmond, No. SD37131, at *2 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2022).)

“In the absence of proof of service mandated by Rule 54.20, the court lacks the proof established by the Missouri Supreme Court as necessary to determine that the court has jurisdiction of the person of the defendant.” (See Russ v. Russ (2001) 39 S.W.3d 895, 897.)

“In Missouri, [a] single tortious act is sufficient to support personal jurisdiction consistent with due process standards.” (See State ex rel. Key Ins. Co. v. Roldan (2019) 587 S.W.3d 638, 643.)

“Further, Missouri courts may still assert personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary defendant corporation without violating due process if that entity has at least one contact with this state and the cause of action being pursued arises out of that contact.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A defendant has the initial burden of raising lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 55.27.” (See Pohlmann v. Bil-Jax (1997) Inc., 954 S.W.2d 371, 372.)

“When a defendant raises the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the action arose out of an activity covered by the long arm statute.” (See id.)

“For a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the due process clause requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the state in which the cause of action arose.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Appellant has the burden of making a prima facie showing that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over Respondent, and the determination of the jurisdictional issue is for the trial court in the first instance.” (See Farris v. Boyke (1996) 936 S.W.2d 197, 200; Products Plus, Inc. v. Clean Green, Inc. (2003) 112 S.W.3d 120, 122.)

“In this connection, the trial court may consider the credibility of affidavits presented.” (See Products Plus, Inc. v. Clean Green, Inc. (2003) 112 S.W.3d 120, 122.)

“However, the sufficiency of the evidence to make a prima facie showing that the trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction is a question of law, which this Court reviews independently on appeal” (See id.)

“Whether a trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a party is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” (See Brewer v. Cosgrove (2016) 498 S.W.3d 837, 841.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “foreseeability alone is not a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction.” (See Pohlmann v. Bil-Jax, Inc. (1997) 954 S.W.2d 371, 373.)

It is also well settled that “because personal jurisdiction is an individual right, a defendant may waive jurisdictional objections by consenting to personal jurisdiction.” (See Ross v. Jeschke AG Serv. (2018) LLC, 552 S.W.3d 719, 722-23.)