Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Nevada

Background

“When a party challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff typically has the burden of producing evidence that establishes a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” (Consipio Holding, BV v. Carlberg (2012) 282 P.3d 751, 754 citing Trump v. District Court (1993) 109 Nev. 687, 692.)

“[A] plaintiff may make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction prior to trial and then prove jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at trial.” (Id.)

Importantly, “a defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be raised in a responsive pleading or else it is waived, unlike subject matter jurisdiction, which may be raised at any time. (Superpumper, Inc. v. Leonard, 137 Nev. Adv. Op. 43, 8 [Nev. 2021] citing NRCP 12(h)(1)(B) [listing lack of personal jurisdiction as a defense that is waived if not raised in a responsive pleading or made in a Rule 12 motion, but not including lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a waivable defense].)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Questions involving personal jurisdiction mandate an inquiry into whether it is ‘reasonable ... to require [the defendant] to defend the particular suit [in the jurisdiction where it is brought].’” (Trump, supra, 109 Nev. at 701 quoting World–Wide Volkswagen Corp., infra, 444 U.S. at 292.)

“Factors to consider in determining whether assuming personal jurisdiction is reasonable include:

1. ‘the burden on the defendant’ of defending an action in the foreign forum,
2. ‘the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute,’
3. ‘the plaintiffs interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief,’
4. ‘the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,’ and
5. the ‘shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’”

(Consipio, supra, 282 P.3d at 755 quoting Emeterio v. Clint Hurt and Assocs. (1998) 114 Nev. 1031, 1036–37, quoting World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 292.)

Jurisdition and Corporations

“A district court can exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident officers and directors who directly harm a Nevada corporation.” (Consipio Holding, BV v. Carlberg (2012) 282 P.3d 751, 754.)

“Nevada's long-arm statute permits personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless the exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process.” (Id., citing NRS 14.065(1).)

“Due process requires ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum state ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” (Trump, 109 Nev. at 698, 857 P.2d at 747 quoting Mizner v. Mizner (1968) 84 Nev. 268, 270.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

Appellate courts will “review a district court's order dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo.” (Consipio, supra, 282 P.3d at 754 citing Baker v. Dist. Ct. (2000) 116 Nev. 527, 531; see CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc. (2011) 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 [9th Cir.].)

The Court’s Decision

Where appellant “did not identify a link between the acts or conduct underlying his tort claims and Nevada, and because [appellant’s] injury does not connect respondents’ actions to Nevada in a jurisdictionally significant way, the district court correctly determined that respondents lacked minimal contacts with Nevada to satisfy due process and support personal jurisdiction.” (Tricarichi v. Coöperatieve Rabobank, U.A. (2019) 440 P.3d 645.)

“[T]he defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State [must be] such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” (Consipio Holding, BV v. Carlberg (2012) 282 P.3d 751, 754 citing World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 297.)