No. 20-342

Kyko Global Inc., et al. v. Omkar Bhongir

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2020-09-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: calder-effects-test calder-v-jones civil-procedure corporate-directors due-process effects-test personal-jurisdiction rule-12b2 state-law walden-v-fiore
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2020-10-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Walden v. Fiore nullifies state personal-jurisdiction-statutes

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners’ Complaint was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Walden v. Fiore, 571 US. 277 (2014). Respondent was a California-based director of a corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Respondent electronically contacted his fellow corporate directors in Pennsylvania to create fraudulent accounts receivable in Pennsylvania to induce lenders, such as Petitioners, to lend money to the corporation. As a result, Petitioners suffered the loss of millions of dollars. Relying upon Walden, the lower courts both opined that Respondent’s electronic communications from California to his fellow corporate directors in Pennsylvania were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Respondent notwithstanding that Pennsylvania statute 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5322(a)(7)(iv) expressly permits the assertion of personal jurisdiction over corporate directors for causes of action arising from their directorships. Petitioners’ Complaint was also dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction on a legal doctrine—the “Effects Test” set forth in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)—which Respondent failed to raise in his Motion to Dismiss and without the district court providing Petitioners an opportunity to address the Effects Test prior to dismissal of their Complaint. The questions before this Court are as follows: (1) Whether Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) nullifies Pennsylvania statute 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5322(a)(7)(iv)—and similar statutes and li QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued rules from other jurisdictions—which asserts personal jurisdiction over corporate directors regarding a cause of action related to the person’s directorship? (2) Whether a defendant must legally support his Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion by identifying the specific legal basis that allegedly demonstrates lack of personal jurisdiction before the burden shifts to a plaintiff to produce jurisdictional evidence in response to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion.

Docket Entries

2020-11-02
Petition DENIED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2020-10-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
2020-10-12
Waiver of right of respondent Omkar Bhongir to respond filed.
2020-09-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 15, 2020)

Attorneys

Kyko Global Inc., et al.
Jayson Matthew MacydaKyko Global Inc. and Affiliates, Petitioner
Jayson Matthew MacydaKyko Global Inc. and Affiliates, Petitioner
Omkar Bhongir
Laura Ann LangeLaura Lange, Respondent
Laura Ann LangeLaura Lange, Respondent