Kyko Global Inc., et al. v. Omkar Bhongir
DueProcess FifthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Whether Walden v. Fiore nullifies state personal-jurisdiction-statutes
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.