Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in New Jersey

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

Background

“The primary focus of [the] personal jurisdiction inquiry is the defendant's relationship to the forum state.” (See Ebin N.Y., Inc. v. Ham, No. A-3209-18T3, at *6 (App. Div. May 29, 2020).)

“To enable a state court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, the lawsuit must aris[e] out of or relate[e] to the defendant's contacts with the forum.” (See Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 127 [citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414, n. 8.)

“There must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State . . . .” (See Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919; Ebin N.Y., Inc. v. Ham, No. A-3209-18T3, at *7 (App. Div. May 29, 2020).)

“Under the New Jersey Court Rules, a party may raise a defense of lack of in personam jurisdiction through a motion to dismiss. According to R. 4:6-2(b) a lack of jurisdiction over the person may be made by motion to the court before any pleading is made. R. 4:6-2(b).” (See Magnetek Inc. v. Monsanto Co., CIVIL ACTION No. BER-L-3362-17, at *3 (Law Div. Oct. 18, 2017).)

“A court cannot assert jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant unless such defendant has engaged in contact with the forum state.” (See Waste Mgmt. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1994) 138 N.J. 106, 649 A .2d 379.) “An out-of-state activity constitutes a contact with the state for the purposes of personal jurisdiction where the actor knew that its effects would be manifested in the forum state.” (See K.A. v. J.L. (2016) 450 N.J. Super. 247, 251.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Where a defendant has engaged in "continuous and systematic activities" in another state, the courts of that state may exercise general jurisdiction over that defendant. , where the defendant's activities do not rise to the level of ‘continuous and systematic,’ the courts are only able to exercise specific jurisdiction over the defendant—in other words, jurisdiction limited to causes of action arising directly out of the defendant's contacts with the state.” (See K.A. v. J.L. (2016) 450 N.J. Super. 247, 252.)

“Except as elsewhere provided in these rules, and subject to the right to be prosecuted by indictment, where any court of this State is without jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action, issue or cause, it shall, on motion or on its own initiative, order the action or cause, with the record and all papers on file, transferred to the proper court for determination; and the action or cause shall then be proceeded upon as if it had been originally commenced in the proper court.” (See Bruder v. Teachers' Pension Annuity Fund (1958) 27 N.J. 266, 272.)

“The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be raised by motion within ninety days of the filing of an answer, Rule 4:6-2(b) and Rule 4:6-3, and if a defendant fails to do so, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is indeed waived, R. 4:6-7.” (See Delage Landen Fin. Servs. Inc. v. Leighton K. Lee Law Office, No. A-3148-10T2, at *5 (App. Div. Dec. 19, 2011).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

A court's jurisdiction is a “mixed question of law and fact that must be resolved at the outset before the matter may proceed...” (See Rippon v. Smigel (2017) 449 N.J. Super. 344, 359 [quoting Citibank, N.A. v. Estate of Simpson (1996) 290 N.J. Super. 519, 532].) “A defendant is subject to general jurisdiction when that defendant has "maintained continuous and systematic activities in the forum state...irrespective of its relation to the state.” (See Rippon, 449 N.J. Super. at 358-59 [quoting Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc. (1989) 115 N.J. 317, 323].)

“A court may exercise only specific jurisdiction over a defendant when the cause of action arises directly out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state and that defendant has ‘minimum contacts’ (See Magnetek Inc. v. Monsanto Co., CIVIL ACTION No. BER-L-3362-17, at *3-4 (Law Div. Oct. 18, 2017).)

“The plaintiff has the burden to show that there are sufficient facts to support a finding of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. , the courts should allow for jurisdictional discovery unless the plaintiff's claims are ‘clearly frivolous.’ New Jersey Courts have generally held that the record must support the existence of disputed or conflicting facts to warrant jurisdictional discovery.” (See Magnetek Inc. v. Monsanto Co., CIVIL ACTION No. BER-L-3362-17, at *4 (Law Div. Oct. 18, 2017).)

“However, personal jurisdiction has one additional requirement that must be satisfied before it is complete—service of process must be effectuated on the defendant. As a preliminary matter, a plaintiff must serve the complaint and summons on the defendant personally. R. 4:4–4(a). If, however, a plaintiff's reasonable, good-faith attempt to effectuate personal service proves unsuccessful, the plaintiff may then attempt to effectuate service using the secondary methods prescribed in the court rules.” (See R. 4:4–3(b); K.A. v. J.L. (2016) 450 N.J. Super. 247, 252.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “by purposefully and explicitly distinguishing the standard governing waiver of different defenses, Rule 4:6-7 demonstrates an intent to allow the personal jurisdiction defense to be more liberally waived than others, including subject-matter jurisdiction.” (See Martinez v. Amrit, No. A-5072-12T4, at *19 (App. Div. Feb. 6, 2014).)

It is also well settled that “defenses R. 4:6-2 are waived if not raised by motion pursuant to R. 4:6-3 or if omitted from a previously made motion to which R. 4:6-6 is applicable. Defenses (e) and (f) and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered, or by motion for summary judgment or at the trial on the merits. Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the matter except as otherwise provided by R. 1:13-4.” (See id.)

Documents for Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in New Jersey

Sort By

Atlas Data Privacy C Orporatio Vs Hiya, Inc. document preview

NOTICE OF REMOVAL submitted by OCCHIOGROSSO, JEAN, ALEXANDRA of VEDDER PRI…

89 pages

MER-L-000285-24 03/19/2024 6:08:02 PM Pg 1 of 2 Trans ID: LCV2024715714 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION, LAW DIVISION: et al., MERCER COUNTY Plaintiff A CIVIL ACTION v. DOCKET NO.: MER-L-000285-24 HIYA INC., et al., …