Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Idaho

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of Personal Jurisdiction

“A state may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant only when the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." (See Brockett Co. v. Crain (2021) 168 Idaho 375, 384-85; Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC (2007) 143 Idaho 723, 727, 152 P.3d 594, 598 [quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95].)

“This requirement stems from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” (See id.) 

“The ‘minimum contacts’ test from International Shoe is satisfied where the defendant ‘purposefully directs’ his activities at residents of the forum state and the litigation arises out of or relates to those activities." (See Houghland Farms, Inc. v. Johnson (1990) 119 Idaho 72, 76, 803 P.2d 978, 982 [quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528].)

"It is axiomatic that before a state can exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, the defendant must purposefully [avail] itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” (See Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Washington (1993) 123 Idaho 739, 743–44, 852 P.2d 491, 495–96 [quoting Schneider v. Sverdsten Logging Co.(1983) 104 Idaho 210, 212, 657 P.2d 1078, 1080].)

“In determining whether minimum contacts exist, a court must focus on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” (See Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC (2007) 143 Idaho 723, 727, 152 P.3d 594, 598.)

"Once a court finds the requisite minimum contacts, it must then proceed to determine whether its assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." (See id.) 

"The question of the existence of personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is one of law, which this Court reviews freely." (See Dickinson Frozen Foods, Inc. v. J.R. Simplot Co. (2019) 164 Idaho 669, 677, 434 P.3d 1275, 1283; Knutsen v. Cloud (2005)142 Idaho 148, 150, 124 P.3d 1024, 1026.)

“A party may assert as a defense that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction.” (See I.R.C.P. 12(b)(2); Idaho Dep't of Fin. v. Zarinegar (2020) 167 Idaho 611, 621.)

“However, [a] party waives any defense listed in subsection (b)(2) ... by failing to assert it by motion before filing a responsive pleading or filing any other motion ...." (See id; I.R.C.P. 12(h)(1).)

"The voluntary appearance of a party or service of any pleading by the party ... constitutes a voluntary submission to the personal jurisdiction of the court." (See I.R.C.P. 4.1(a); see also State v. Aguilar (1982) 103 Idaho 578, 580, 651 P.2d 512, 514 (1982) [holding a defendant consents to the court's personal jurisdiction when the defendant fails to object or raise as an affirmative defense the asserted lack of personal jurisdiction over him as required under I.R.C.P.... 12(h), and participated in the proceeding].)

The Legal Basis for the Assertion of Personal Jurisdiction

“Any person, firm, company, association or corporation, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated, thereby submits said person, firm, company, association or corporation, and if an individual, his personal representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts:

(a) The transaction of any business within this state which is hereby defined as the doing of any act for the purpose of realizing pecuniary benefit or accomplishing or attempting to accomplish, transact or enhance the business purpose or objective or any part thereof of such person, firm, company, association or corporation.” (See I.C. § 5-514(a) (1990); Houghland Farms, Inc. v. Johnson (1990) 119 Idaho 72, 75.)

“The exercise of personal jurisdiction by the courts of this state over those who do any of the acts enumerated in I.C. § 5-514 extends only as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts. This is ‘specific’ as distinguished from ‘general jurisdiction.’” (See id.)

“It has been said that when a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum, the State is exercising specific jurisdiction over the defendant.” (See id.)

“When a state exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit not arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum, the State has been said to be exercising general jurisdiction over the defendant.” (See id.)

“In analyzing whether there are sufficient contacts for the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, we must remember that the suit for which jurisdiction is sought must arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with Idaho. It is not just any contacts by the defendant with Idaho that will sustain the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, but only those out of which the suit arises or those that relate to the suit.” (See id.)

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

“Today Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a defendant to challenge personal jurisdiction by a pre-answer motion or by the answer itself if no such motion is filed.” (See Donaldson v. Donaldson (1986) 111 Idaho 951, 953.)

“The Rule further provides that [n]o defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion.” (See id.)

“Of course, Rule 12(h) requires that objections to personal jurisdiction and to the sufficiency of process be set forth in the first responsive pleading; but they are not waived merely because other defenses are raised simultaneously.” (See id.)

“Rule 12(h)(1) provides, a defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, . . . insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived . . . if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading.” (See Engleman v. Milanez (2002) 137 Idaho 83, 85.)

“The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow a party to ‘preserve the right’ to object to personal jurisdiction at a later date when filing a motion for change of venue under 12(b)(3).” (See Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc. v. Yack (1994) 125 Idaho 310, 313-14 (Idaho Ct. App.)

“A Rule 12(b)(2) motion raising a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be joined with any other Rule 12(b) defenses or objections in the first pre-answer motion or in the answer if no Rule 12(b) pre-answer motion is filed.” (See id.)

“If the Rule 12(b)(2) defense is not joined, it is waived.” (See id; I.R.C.P. 12(g), 12(h)(1); Donaldson v. Donaldson (1986) 111 Idaho 951, 729 P.2d 426.)

“Further, I.R.C.P. 4(i) provides that [t]he voluntary appearance of a party or service of any pleading by the party, except a motion under Rules 12(b)(2), (4) or (5) . . . constitutes voluntary submission to the personal jurisdiction of the court." (See Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc. v. Yack (1994) 125 Idaho 310, 313-14.)

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

“In analyzing whether the district court correctly granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we must first identify the legal basis for the assertion of personal jurisdiction over any of the Defendants.” (See Telford v. Smith Cnty. (2013) 155 Idaho 497, 501.)

"The district court has no personal jurisdiction outside of the state boundaries except as provided by the Idaho long-arm statute." (See Brannon v. City of Coeur d'Alene (2012) 153 Idaho 843, 851, 292 P.3d 234, 242.)

“Idaho's long-arm statute is Idaho Code section 5–514, which provides for specific jurisdiction rather than general jurisdiction.” (See id.)

“It grants jurisdiction over a defendant who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated ... as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of said acts." (See I.C. sub. sec. 5–514; Telford v. Smith Cnty. (2013) 155 Idaho 497, 501.)

“A cause of action must be alleged in the party's pleading to be raised in a lawsuit.” (See Cecil v. Gagnebin (2009) 146 Idaho 714, 718, 202 P.3d 1, 5.)

“Therefore, in determining whether there is in personam jurisdiction over a defendant, we will only consider the causes of action alleged in the complaint, not causes of action that could have been alleged under the facts presented, but were not.” (See Telford v. Smith Cnty. (2013) 155 Idaho 497, 501.)

“The district court had inherent power to pass on its own jurisdiction.” (See Skogerson v. McConnell (1983) 104 Idaho 863, 864 n. 1, 664 P.2d 770, 771 n. 1.)

“Once jurisdiction has been called into question, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving jurisdictional facts.” (See Schneider v. Sverdsten Logging Co. (1983) 104 Idaho 210, 214 n. 2, 657 P.2d 1078, 1082 n. 2; In re Annexation to the City of Shelley (2011) 255 P.3d 1175, 7.)

“The standard of review of an order granting or denying a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b) is the traditional one utilized by the appellate court for mixed questions of law and fact in cases involving claims of insufficiency of service of process.” (See Herrera v. Estay (2009) 146 Idaho 674, 679, 201 P.3d 647, 652.)

“In such cases, the district court's findings of fact will be upheld where they are supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record and the appellate court will freely review the district court's application of law to its findings of facts.” (See id; Sells v. Robinson (2005) 141 Idaho 767, 771, 118 P.3d 99, 103; Haight v. Dales Used Cars, Inc. (2003) 139 Idaho 853, 855, 87 P.3d 962, 964.)

“The same standard logically applies to a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the person of a defendant, which entails mixed questions of fact and law.” (See Salamina v. Estate of Mauzey, No. 42670, at *3 (Idaho Ct. App. July 20, 2015).)

“This Court has free review over whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was properly granted.” (See Med. Recovery Servs. v. Eddins, No. 47848, at *5 (Idaho July 9, 2021).)

“Jurisdiction is ... a question of law and is reviewed de novo.” (See Syringa Networks, LLC v. Idaho Department of Administration (2016) 367 P.3d 208, 216.)

Legal Precedents on Deciding whether a Court has Personal Jurisdiction

It is well settled that “the Court created a two-prong test for specific jurisdiction: (1) the out-of-state defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction must be fair.” (See Griffin v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates Ltd., No. 47703, at *10 (Idaho Apr. 14, 2021).)

As such, it is also well settled that “once a court finds the requisite minimum contacts, it must then proceed to determine whether its assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (See Brockett Co. v. Crain (2021) 168 Idaho 375, 385.)