Becquer v. Mirantis, Inc. et al
Filing
39
ORDER granting 24 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction defendant Marque Teegardin. (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 11/9/2018. (DLO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No.: 18-1072(DSD/HB)
Pedro J. Becquer,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Mirantis, Inc. and
Marque Teegardin,
Defendant.
Jeffrey S Storms, Esq. and Newmark Storms Dworak LLC, 100
South Fifth Street, Suite 2100, Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel
for plaintiff.
Richard Greiffenstein, Esq., Michael J. Moberg, Esq. and
Jackson Lewis, P.C., 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3850,
Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel for defendants.
This matter is before the court upon the motion to dismiss by
defendant Marque Teegardin. Based on a review of the file, record,
and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court
grants the motion.
BACKGROUND
This
dispute
arises
out
of
plaintiff
employment with defendant Mirantis, Inc.
Pedro
Becquer’s
In July 2015, Becquer, a
Minnesota resident, accepted a job as an account executive with
Mirantis, a California company.
¶¶ 3, 5.
Am. Countercl. ¶¶ 6-8; Compl.
At the time, Becquer was employed by NICE Systems, Inc.,
a New Jersey company.
Am. Countercl. ¶ 15; Becquer Decl. ¶ 4.
Rather than resign from NICE, Becquer maintained dual employment
throughout his tenure with Mirantis.
a
Georgia
resident,
supervised Becquer.1
was
a
Defendant Marque Teegardin,
Mirantis
employee
who
indirectly
Becquer Decl. ¶ 10; Teegardin Decl. ¶ 2.
Teegardin briefly lived in Minnesota from 1998 to 1999, but he
no longer owns or leases property here, nor does he have bank
accounts in the state. Teegardin Decl. ¶¶ 6-9. Further, Teegardin
does not pay taxes in Minnesota, is not employed in Minnesota, does
not have a mailing address in Minnesota, and is not registered to
vote in Minnesota.
Id. ¶¶ 10-15.
Although Teegardin traveled to
Minnesota for a one-day meeting with Becquer in November 2015, he
did not otherwise travel to Minnesota during his employment with
Mirantis.
Id. ¶¶ 16-17.
In January 2016, Becquer resigned from Mirantis after deciding
to remain with NICE.
He resigned in a telephone call with
Teegardin, who was in Georgia at the time.
Decl. ¶ 18.
Compl. ¶ 31; Teegardin
Teegardin, who denies knowing previously that Becquer
was dually employed by Mirantis and NICE, became angry.
32-33; Teegardin Supp. Decl. ¶ 19.
and
disclosed
According
to
Becquer’s
Becquer,
dual
Becquer, and NICE did so.
Teegardin then contacted NICE
employment.
Teegardin
Compl. ¶¶
encouraged
Compl.
NICE
to
¶¶
41-43.
terminate
Id. ¶¶ 43, 48.
1
Teegardin has since left Mirantis and now works for Sapho,
Inc., a California company.
2
On April 23, 2018, Becquer filed this action against Mirantis
and Teegardin alleging tortious interference contract, business
relationship, and/or reasonable expectations of economic advantage.
Mirantis filed several counterclaims, which Becquer unsuccessfully
moved to dismiss. Teegardin now moves to dismiss the claim against
him for lack of personal jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
To
survive
a
motion
to
dismiss
for
lack
of
personal
jurisdiction, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case that
the forum state has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 543 (8th Cir. 1998).
In the
absence of an evidentiary hearing, a court “must look at the facts
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all
factual conflicts in favor of that party.”
Dakota Indus., Inc. v.
Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1387 (8th Cir. 1991).
A
federal court may assume jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
“only to the extent permitted by the long-arm statute of the forum
state and by the Due Process Clause.”
Romak USA, Inc. v. Rich, 384
F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted).
Because the Minnesota long-arm statute “confers
jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process
Clause,” the court need only consider due process requirements.
3
See Coen v. Coen, 509 F.3d 900, 905 (8th Cir. 2007).
To satisfy due process, a defendant must have “sufficient
minimum contacts” with the forum state such that maintaining the
suit
“does
not
offend
traditional
notions
of
fair
play
and
substantial justice.”
Romak, 384 F.3d at 984 (citation omitted).
“Sufficient
exist
when
forum
state
connection
contacts
with
the
[a]
are
defendant’s
such
that
conduct
[it]
reasonably anticipate being haled into court there....”
and
should
Coen, 509
F.3d at 905 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Contacts
with
the
forum
state
can
establish
personal
jurisdiction under either general or specific jurisdiction.
A
forum state has specific jurisdiction when the cause of action
“arise[s] out of” or “relate[s] to” a defendant’s activities within
that state.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472
(1985) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
General
jurisdiction is present when, regardless of the cause of action, a
defendant has “continuous and systematic contacts with the forum
state.”
marks
Coen, 509 F.3d at 905 (citation and internal quotation
omitted).
Under
either
analysis,
the
Eighth
Circuit
considers five factors in determining whether personal jurisdiction
exists:
the
“(1) the nature and quality of defendant’s contacts with
forum
state;
(2)
quantity
of
contacts;
(3)
source
and
connection of the cause of action with those contacts; and to a
lesser degree, (4) the interest of the forum state; and (5) the
4
convenience of the parties.”
Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. Nat’l
Med. Waste, Inc., 65 F.3d 1427, 1432 (8th Cir. 1995).
II.
Specific Jurisdiction
Becquer argues that Minnesota may exercise specific personal
jurisdiction over Teegardin because Teegardin knew that Becquer
lived and worked in Minnesota, Teegardin effectively supervised
Becquer’s Minnesota-based work, Teegardin traveled to Minnesota
once to meet with Becquer, and Becquer became unemployed in
Minnesota due to Teegardin’s actions.2
Teegardin responds that
specific jurisdiction is lacking because the above alleged contacts
are unrelated to the tort he is accused of committing.
The court
agrees.
“In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over
a claim, 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.’” Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781
(2017) (alteration in original) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires
Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).
“When there
is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless
2
Becquer does not provide any detailed argument or legal
support for his position that Teegardin is subject to general
jurisdiction in Minnesota. See Pl.’s Opp’n Mem. at 7. The court
therefore will not fully address the issue, but notes that the
record is insufficient to establish that Teegardin had “continuous
and systematic” contacts with Minnesota for purposes of general
jurisdiction.
5
of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the
State.”
Id.
Becquer alleges that Teegardin tortiously interfered with
Becquer’s employment with NICE by calling NICE in New Jersey (from
Georgia) and disclosing Becquer’s dual employment after Becquer had
resigned from Mirantis.
None of the actions alleged took place in
Minnesota or were directed to Minnesota.
Further, none of the
contacts Becquer relies on bear any relationship to the tort
alleged.
As a result, Becquer has failed to make a prima facie
showing that Minnesota has specific personal jurisdiction over
Teegardin.
III. Effects Test
Becquer also argues that personal jurisdiction over Teegardin
exists under the “effects” test set forth in Calder v. Jones, 465
U.S. 783 (1984). The Calder test “allows the assertion of personal
jurisdiction over non-resident defendants whose acts are performed
for the very purpose of having their consequences felt in the forum
state.”
Dakota Indus., 946 F.2d at 1390–91 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). In other words, a forum state may obtain
specific jurisdiction over a defendant who commits tortious acts
“where
the
defendant’s
plaintiff
makes
acts
were
(1)
a
prima
facie
intentional,
(2)
showing
were
that
uniquely
the
or
expressly aimed at the forum state, and (3) caused harm, the brunt
of which was suffered - and which the defendant knew was likely to
6
be suffered - [in the forum state].”
Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d
785, 796 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (citation and
internal quotations marks omitted).
Even where the effects of a
defendant’s actions are felt in the forum state, this test is
“merely
an
additional
factor
to
defendant’s relevant contacts.”
consider
when
Id. at 796-97.
evaluating
a
“The Eighth
Circuit construes the Calder effects test narrowly, holding that
‘absent additional contacts, mere effects in the forum state are
insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.’”
NexGen HBM, Inc.
v. ListReports, Inc., No. 16-3143, 2017 WL 4040808, at *9 (D. Minn.
Sept. 12, 2017) (quoting Johnson, 614 F.3d at 794).
Here, the fact that Becquer was affected by Teegardin’s
conduct in Minnesota is insufficient to meet the Calder test. This
is because Becquer has failed to establish that Teegardin’s conduct
was “uniquely or expressly” aimed at Minnesota.
at 796.
Johnson, 614 F.3d
Teegardin likely knew that Becquer would be affected by
his actions in Minnesota, but Calder requires that Teegardin’s
actions be directed at Minnesota.
Id.
Instead, the allegations
show that Teegardin directed his actions at New Jersey - where NICE
was located. Further, the fact that Teegardin knew that Becquer is
a Minnesota citizen is not enough. See Wood v. Kapustin, 992 F.
Supp. 2d 942, 946 (D. Minn. 2014)(holding that the court did not
have personal jurisdiction under Calder where plaintiff alleged
that defendants knew she practiced law in Minnesota and intended to
7
harm her reputation as an attorney in Minnesota because the alleged
defamatory statements were not aimed at Minnesota).
As a result,
Teegardin has also failed to make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction under the effects test.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
The motion to dismiss [ECF No. 24] is granted; and
2.
Defendant Marque Teegardin is dismissed from the action.
Dated: November 9, 2018
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?