Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction in Wisconsin

Background

“The state may exercise general jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based on contacts with the forum state unassociated with the claim, provided those contacts are sufficient to justify jurisdiction.” (See Precision Erecting, Inc. v. M&I Marshall & Ilsley Bank, G.A.P., Inc. (1998) 224 Wis. 2d 288, 297.)

“A corporation may be subject to personal jurisdiction in a forum state under a theory of specific jurisdiction if it has certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (See Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2017) 376 Wis. 2d 528, 539.)

“Exercise of specific jurisdiction requires a nexus between the defendant's activities in the state and the suit against it. Availability of specific jurisdiction obviates the need for states to use registration statutes to secure personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations' activities.” (See Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2017) 376 Wis. 2d 528, 539.)

“By contrast, a state may exercise general jurisdiction over a corporation if its continuous corporate operations within [the] state [are] ... so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those activities.” (See Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2017) 376 Wis. 2d 528, 539-40.)

“If a defendant is subject to general jurisdiction in a forum, it may be sued there even in the absence of any relationship between the litigation and the defendant's contacts with the state.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“[A] state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State.” (See CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. MTI Connect, LLC (2020) 394 Wis. 2d 126, 138.)

“[T]he defendant's contacts with the forum State must be such that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (See id.)

“[F]oreseeability of injury in the forum State alone has never been a sufficient benchmark for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause." (See id.)

“Instead, the foreseeability that is critical to [the] due process analysis ... is that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." (See id.)

“The touchstone of the due process analysis for specific personal jurisdiction is whether the defendant purposefully established ‘minimum contacts’ in the forum State.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Whether a party is subject to personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.” (See Rasmussen v. Gen. Motors Corp. (2011) WI 52, ¶14, 335 Wis. 2d 1, 803 N.W.2d 623; CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. MTI Connect, LLC (2020) 394 Wis. 2d 126, 136.)

“A court decides this issue using a two-step inquiry.” (See CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. MTI Connect, LLC (2020) 394 Wis. 2d 126, 136.)

“First, the court determines whether the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction under Wisconsin's long-arm statute, WIS. STAT. subsection 801.05.” (See id; Kopke , 245 Wis. 2d 396, ¶8, 629 N.W.2d 662.)

Plaintiff “has a ‘minimal burden’ of showing that the statutory and constitutional requirements are met.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “to establish specific personal jurisdiction, there [must] be some act by which the defendant purposefully avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” (See CITGO Petroleum Corp. v. MTI Connect, LLC (2020) 394 Wis. 2d 126, 139.)

It is also well settled that “when addressing minimum contacts in the context of specific personal jurisdiction, [t]he inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” (See id.)