Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania

What Is a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction?

Background

“A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based upon the specific acts of the defendant which gave rise to the cause of action or based on the defendant's general activity within the state. When a state exercises personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum, the state is exercising specific jurisdiction.”

(Schiavone v. Aveta, 2012 Pa. Super. 68, 4 [Pa. Super. Ct. 2012] citing Kubik v. Letteri (1992) 614 A.2d 1110, 1113 citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.8.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Section 5322(a) of the Pennsylvania Long-Arm Statute enumerates certain types of contact with Pennsylvania deemed sufficient to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction over foreign defendants. (Gaboury v. Gaboury (2009) 988 A.2d 672, 677; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(a).)

Section 5322(b) further provides that “specific jurisdiction may be asserted over non-resident defendants ‘to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States and may be based on the most minimum contacts with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States.’” (Kubik v. Letteri (1992) 614 A.2d 1110, 1113; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(b).)

Finally, Section 5322. Bases of personal jurisdiction over persons outside this Commonwealth (a) “General rule.—A tribunal of this Commonwealth may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person ... who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action or other matter arising from such person: [...] (3) Causing harm or tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth....” (Schiavone v. Aveta, 2012 Pa. Super. 68, 5 [Pa. Super. Ct. 2012] citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(a)(3).)

“Thus, there are two requirements necessary for Pennsylvania courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant: first, jurisdiction must be authorized by the Pennsylvania Long-Arm Statute; and second, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with constitutional principles of due process.” (Schiavone v. Aveta, 2012 Pa. Super. 68, 4 [Pa. Super. Ct. 2012] citing Kenneth H. Oakes Ltd. v. Josephson (1989) 568 A.2d 215, 216; Gaboury, supra at 677-78.)

Defendant's Burden

“Once it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’” (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 476.) “This analysis is conducted on a case-by-case basis, based on appropriate factors such as:

the burden on the defendant,
the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute,
the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief,
the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies and
the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.

(Kubik v. Letteri (1992) 614 A.2d 1110, 1114 citing Burger King, supra at 478;see J.C. Snaverly & Sons, Inc. v. Springfield (1991) 600 A.2d 972, 974; Schiavone , 2012 Pa. Super. 68, at 12.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Our standard of review of a trial court's order granting preliminary objections challenging personal jurisdiction is as follows:

‘When preliminary objections, if sustained, would result in the dismissal of an action, such objections should be sustained only in cases which are clear and free from doubt.... Moreover, when deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.’

“[The] Court will reverse the trial court's decision regarding preliminary objections only where there has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Once the moving party supports its objections to personal jurisdiction, the burden of proving personal jurisdiction is upon the party asserting it. Courts must resolve the question of personal jurisdiction based on the circumstances of each particular case.” (Gaboury v. Gaboury (2009) 988 A.2d 672, 675; Schiavone v. Aveta 2012 Pa. Super. 68, 3 [Pa. Super. Ct. 2012].)

The Court’s Decision

“[W]hen deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction [,] the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Sulkava v. Glaston Finland Oy (2012) 54 A.3d 884, 889.)

“Service of process is a mechanism by which a court obtains jurisdiction of a defendant, and therefore, the rules concerning service of process must be strictly followed. Without valid service, a court lacks personal jurisdiction of a defendant and is powerless to enter judgment against him or her. Thus, improper service is not merely a procedural defect that can be ignored when a defendant subsequently learns of the action against him or her.” (Fonzone v. Tribune Corp. (2012) 52 A.3d 375, 376 citing Cintas Corp. v. Lee's Cleaning Servs. (1997( 549 Pa. 84, 700 A.2d 915, 917–18.)

Documents for Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Pennsylvania

Sort By

2024-SU-001672 Civil: Contract - Debt Collection: Credit Card document preview

COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL ACTION

28 pages

York County Prothonotary E-Filed - 31 May 2024 03:52:20 PM Case Number: 2024-SU-001672 York X Westlake Services, LLC dba Westlake Financial Services Susan Blanchard X X …