Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in North Carolina

Evaluating Personal Jurisdiction

“According to N.C. Gen.Stat. sub. sec. 1-75.4(1)(d), [a] court of this State ... has jurisdiction over a person [i]n any action, whether the claim arises within or without this State, in which a claim is asserted against a party who [i]s engaged in substantial activity within this State, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise." (See Brown v. Meter (2009) 681 S.E.2d 382, 388.)

“N.C. Gen.Stat. sub. sec. 1-75.4(1)(d) was intended to make available to the North Carolina courts the full jurisdictional powers permissible under federal due process." (See Dillon v. Numismatic Funding Corp. (1977) 291 N.C. 674, 676, 231 S.E.2d 629, 630.)

"[B]y its plain language the statute requires some sort of ‘activity’ to be conducted by the defendant within this state." (See Brown v. Meter (2009) 681 S.E.2d 382, 388.)

“When evaluating personal jurisdiction, the trial court must engage in a two-step inquiry: first, the trial court must determine whether a basis for jurisdiction exists under the North Carolina long-arm statute, N.C. Gen.Stat. sub. sec. 1-75.4 (2007), and second, if so, the trial court must determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is consistent with applicable due process standards.” (See id.)

“When personal jurisdiction is alleged to exist pursuant to the long-arm statute, the question of statutory authority collapses into one inquiry[,] which is whether defendant has the minimum contacts necessary to meet the requirements of due process." (See id.)

“Specifically, this Court has held that, when evaluating the existence of personal jurisdiction pursuant to G.S. sub. sec. 1-75.4(1)(d), the question of statutory authorization collapses into the question of whether [the defendant] has the minimum contacts with North Carolina necessary to meet the requirements of due process.” (See id.)

Specific versus General Jurisdiction

“Jurisdiction exercised under North Carolina's long-arm statute can be classified as either specific or general.” (See Brown v. Meter (2009) 681 S.E.2d 382, 388.)

“Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises from or is related to defendant's contacts with the forum." (See id.)

"General jurisdiction exists when the defendant's contacts with the state are not related to the cause of action but the defendant's activities in the forum are sufficiently continuous and systematic to permit the General Court of Justice to exert personal jurisdiction over that defendant.” (See id.)

“[G]eneral personal jurisdiction may be exercised pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. sub. sec. 1-75.4(1)(d).” (See id.) 

“The threshold level of minimum contacts sufficient to confer general jurisdiction is significantly higher than for specific jurisdiction." (See id.)

Exercising Personal Jurisdiction

"To determine if foreign defendants may be subjected to personal jurisdiction in this State, we must determine whether our courts can constitutionally exercise such jurisdiction consistent with due process of law." (See Schofield v. Schofield (1986) 78 N.C. App. 657, 659, 338 S.E.2d 132, 133–34.)

“Our courts can exercise this jurisdiction only if the defendant has sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with our State that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." (See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95.)

“This due process test require[s] that individuals have fair warning that a particular activity may subject [them] to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign." (See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528.)

“The ‘fair warning requirement’ can be satisfied if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities." (See id.)

"[T]he constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established ‘minimum contacts’ in the forum State." (See Mucha v. Wagner (2020) 845 S.E.2d 443, 446.)

“In order for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must be given notice of service of process.” (See McNair Construction Co. v. Fogle Bros. Co. (1983) 64 N.C. App. 282, 288.)

“But personal jurisdiction may also be invoked where a defendant waives the defense by appearing in the action without objecting to the insufficiency of process or service of process.” (See id.)

“Such appearance, called a general appearance, is one whereby the defendant submits his person to the jurisdiction of the court by invoking the judgment of the court in any manner on any question other than that of the jurisdiction of the court over his person.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“When a trial court makes findings of fact in its ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, our review is limited to whether the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence in the record and whether the conclusions of law are supported by the findings of fact." (See Mucha v. Wagner (2020) 845 S.E.2d 443, 446.)

“We review the trial court's conclusions of law concerning personal jurisdiction de novo.” (See id.)

"When this Court reviews a decision as to personal jurisdiction, it considers only whether the findings of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence in the record; if so, this Court must affirm the order of the trial court." (See Eaker v. Gower (2008) 189 N.C. App. 770, 773.)

"Such appeal is limited to a determination of whether North Carolina statutes permit our courts to entertain this action against defendant[], and, if so, whether this exercise of jurisdiction violates due process." (See id.)