Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Vermont

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

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of Personal Jurisdiction

“Vermont's long arm statute, 12 V.S.A. sub. sec. 913(b), confers jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause." (See Havill v. Woodstock Soapstone Co. (2001) 172 Vt. 625, 626.)

“Personal jurisdiction is permitted where the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." (See id; International Shoe v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.)

“We have held that in determining whether minimum contacts are met, the critical consideration is whether the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that [a defendant] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." (See id; World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 297.)

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

“The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be raised before or at the time of pleading, and failure to raise the defense in the answer or by motion filed before or simultaneously with the answer constitutes a waiver of the defense.” (See Yanmar Am. Corp. v. Crean Equip. Co., (2012) 48 A.3d 602, 604-05.)

“A defendant who wishes to object to personal jurisdiction must raise the question in the first preliminary motion that is made, or must assert it by answer if no preliminary motion is made.” (See Yanmar Am. Corp. v. Crean Equip. Co. (2012) 48 A.3d 602, 605.)

“Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(1) does provide that a defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person is waived if not made by a motion to dismiss or presented in a responsive pleading.” (See id.)

“A defendant asserting that the court lacks jurisdiction over the person may raise such a challenge by motion following service of the summons and complaint.” (See Roman Catholic Diocese v. Paton Insulators (1985) 146 Vt. 294, 296.)

“The rule contemplates the determination of jurisdictional issues in advance of trial.” (See id.)

“In deciding a pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person, a court has considerable procedural leeway, and may determine the motion on the basis of affidavits alone; may permit discovery concerning the motion; or may conduct an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the motion.” (See id.)

“The latter course is desirable where the written materials have raised questions of credibility or disputed issues of fact.” (See id.)

“If the court chooses to determine the issues on the basis of affidavits alone without an evidentiary hearing the plaintiff is only required to make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, that is, he need only demonstrate facts which support a finding of jurisdiction in order to avoid a motion to dismiss.” (See id.)

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

“We review questions of law, such as dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, de novo.” (See In re L.R.M., No. 22-AP-155, at *2 (Vt. Nov. 10, 2022).)

“Our review of the trial court's legal analysis concerning personal jurisdiction is nondeferential and plenary.” (See Fox v. Fox (2014) 106 A.3d 919, 923.)

“It is well settled that Vermont courts must have both statutory and constitutional power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant.” (See id.)

“Vermont's long-arm statute, 12 V.S.A. sub. sec. 913(b), permits state courts to exercise jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the full extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

It is well settled that “on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, or insufficiency of service of process, consideration of matters outside the pleadings is permissible.” (See Messier v. Bushman (2018) 197 A.3d 882, 888.)

It is also well settled that “a defendant who appears to litigate the merits without properly preserving an objection to personal jurisdiction forfeits the right to raise the objection in the initial proceeding and is bound by the resulting judgment.” (See Yanmar Am. Corp. v. Crean Equip. Co. (2012) 48 A.3d 602, 604.)

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope