Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Arizona

Background

The Arizona personal jurisdiction “rule allows Arizona courts to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation doing business in the state or over one who has caused an event to occur in the state out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose.” (See Armstrong v. Aramco Services Co. (1988) 155 Ariz. 345, 348.)

“To be ‘doing business’ in Arizona for purposes of Rule 4(e)(2), the corporation must have engaged in a systematic and continuous course of conduct in the state.” (See id.)

“The plaintiff has the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction.” (See id.)

“When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff cannot merely rest on the bare allegations in his complaint; he must present facts, by affidavit or otherwise, supporting personal jurisdiction.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Ordinarily, Arizona courts have the authority to adjudge the rights of a non-resident defendant who has constitutionally adequate ‘minimum contacts’ with the state.” (See Kulko v. Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 91–92, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132; Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95; Davis v. Davis (2012) 284 P.3d 23, 25-26.)

“There are three types of activities by a defendant which may allow a court to assert personal jurisdiction over that defendant: (1) consent; (2) presence in the forum; (3) causing effects in the forum.” (See Ruggieri v. General Well Serv., Inc. (1982) 535 F. Supp. 525; Morgan Bank (1990) 164 Ariz. 535, 537.)

“Although a two-step jurisdictional analysis — first addressing the long-arm rule and then addressing due process — is based on established Arizona case law, in recent decisions our supreme court has avoided the first step and analyzed jurisdiction solely in terms of minimum contacts, recognizing that the two-step inquiry is redundant because the limits of our long-arm statute are co-extensive with those of the due process clause.” (See id.)

“Because Rule 4(e)(2) has been interpreted to extend to the permissible limits of due process, the defendant's conduct necessarily satisfies the rule if the constitutionally required minimum contacts are present.” (See Armstrong v. Aramco Services Co. (1988) 155 Ariz. 345, 348.)

“Thus, the court need only inquire whether the assertion of jurisdiction would be constitutionally permissible.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is not a final appealable order.” (See Davis v. Davis (2012) 284 P.3d 23, 25.)

“A determination that personal jurisdiction can be properly exercised is a question of law.” (See Morgan Bank (1990) 164 Ariz. 535, 536.)

“The issue of personal jurisdiction is subject to de novo review.” (See Davis v. Davis (2012) 284 P.3d 23, 25.)

“Generally, a party may either expressly or impliedly consent to a court's personal jurisdiction.” (See id; see also Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee (1982) 456 U.S. 694, 702–05, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492.)

“In other words, a party may affirmatively state his consent or take such steps or seek such relief that manifest his submission to the court's jurisdiction over his person.” (See Davis v. Davis (2012) 284 P.3d 23, 26.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “when the existence of personal jurisdiction under the long arm statute is appropriately challenged . . . the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of establishing it.” (See Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp. (1975) 112 Ariz. 365, 367, 542 P.2d 24, 26; MJG Enters. Inc. v. Moon, 1 CA-CV 10-0767, at *10 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2011).) Thus “when a defendant challenges the existence of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must come forward with facts establishing a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, at which time the burden shifts to the defendant to rebut the showing.” (See id.)

It is also well settled that pursuant to Rule 4(e)(2) “when the defendant . . . is a corporation doing business in this state, or is a person, partnership, corporation or unincorporated association subject to suit in a common name which has caused an event to occur in this state out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose, service may be made as herein provided, and when so made shall be of the same effect as personal service within the state. . .” (See G.T. Helicopters, Inc. v. Helicopters, Ltd. (1983) 135 Ariz. 380, 383 n.2.)