Case Title: Goodwin v. Hall

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1998-04-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Goodwin v. Hall1998 WY 51957 P.2d 1299Case Number: 97-214Decided: 04/15/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

 

Jodi GOODWIN, individually and as next friend of 
Betty Jo GOODWIN,

a minor, Appellants 
(Plaintiffs),

v.

Randy HALL, Appellee 
(Defendant).

 

Appeal from the District Court, Albany County, 
Jeffrey A. Donnell, J.

 

C.M. Aron and K. Karla Tull 
of Aron and Hennig, Laramie, for Appellant.

Kathleen A. Hunt, Laramie, 
for Appellee.

 

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and 
THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ.

 

GOLDEN, Justice.

 [¶1] Jodi Goodwin (Goodwin) appeals from the district 
court's order dismissing her complaint against Randy Hall (Hall) for lack of in 
personam jurisdiction. We affirm.

 

                                             
ISSUES

 

[¶2]Appellant Goodwin 
presents the following issues for our review:

 

          
Whether the constitutional standard of in personam jurisdiction over a 
non-resident committing a commercial tort applies equally to a non-resident who 
commits a personal tort.

 

          
Whether the level of minimum contacts required to assert in personam 
jurisdiction in a commercial case is sufficient in a case affecting individual 
rights.

 

          
Whether an individual as a private person is entitled to the same 
constitutional jurisdiction standards as would apply to the same individual as a 
consumer.

 

          
Whether a Wyoming court has personal jurisdiction over an Idaho resident 
whose conduct in Idaho is intended to interfere with the rights of a Wyoming 
resident mother and child.

 

[¶3]Appellee Hall states the 
following issue in his brief:

 

          
The sole issue before this Court is whether the Trial Court properly 
concluded that the Defendant-Appellee Randy Hall, a resident of the State of 
Idaho, lacked sufficient minimum contacts so as not to be properly subject to in 
personam jurisdiction in the State of Wyoming.

 

                                        
      FACTS

 

[¶4] Goodwin filed her 
complaint individually, and as next friend of the parties' daughter, on January 
13, 1997, in the Second Judicial District, Albany County, Wyoming. The complaint 
alleged claims for damages for abuse of process, intentional infliction of 
emotional distress and baseless pleading. The district court dismissed the 
complaint on motion before any facts outside the pleadings were introduced. 
Therefore, the only relevant facts are those alleged in the complaint. Darrar v. 
Bourke, 910 P.2d 572, 575 (Wyo. 1996).

 

[¶5] This case arises from a 
paternity and child custody dispute between Goodwin and Hall and concerns the 
parties' daughter.  Goodwin and her 
daughter are residents of Wyoming. Hall, the biological father, is a resident of 
Idaho. While his daughter was visiting Hall's parents in Idaho, Hall filed a 
paternity action in Idaho on January 13, 1995. The affidavit Hall filed in the 
action contained false statements concerning Goodwin's care and custody of her 
daughter, and Hall obtained a temporary order which required the daughter to 
remain in Idaho. Goodwin appeared in Idaho, and the temporary order was 
dissolved. Hall dismissed his paternity action and filed a second paternity 
action in Idaho, again filing a misleading affidavit. Hall obtained another 
temporary order requiring his daughter to remain in Idaho. The daughter was 
returned to Goodwin's custody once again.

 

[¶6] Numerous hearings were 
held in Idaho, and Goodwin was required to travel to Idaho on several occasions 
and incur significant legal fees to maintain custody of her daughter. Hall had 
Goodwin served in Wyoming for both paternity actions. Goodwin filed a parallel 
custody action in Wyoming, styled as a petition to establish paternity and award 
child custody and support, or, in the alternative to terminate Hall's parental 
rights. Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the Wyoming and 
Idaho courts determined that custody should be determined by the Wyoming court. 
The Idaho court apparently retained jurisdiction over child support issues. Hall 
subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Wyoming court solely for the 
purpose of determining the custody of his daughter.

 

[¶7] In addition to the 
allegations of damages for abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional 
distress and baseless pleading, Goodwin's complaint also alleged that, as a 
result of Hall's actions, Goodwin lost wages and incurred expenses for 
attorney's fees and transportation to Boise, Idaho. All of Goodwin's claims 
arise out of Hall's actions when he filed his two Idaho paternity actions and 
the alleged false and misleading affidavits filed in connection with those 
actions.

 

[¶8] Hall filed a motion to 
dismiss, challenging the jurisdiction of the Wyoming district court pursuant to 
United States and Wyoming constitutional, statutory and case law. After 
considering the briefs of the parties and the arguments of counsel, the district 
court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Hall in the matter and 
granted Hall's motion to dismiss. Goodwin filed a timely notice of 
appeal.

 

                                           
DISCUSSION

 

[¶9] The issue of in 
personam jurisdiction, if disputed, must be resolved before a case may proceed. 
O'Bryan v. McDonald, 952 P.2d 636, 638 (Wyo. 1998). When the district court 
holds an evidentiary hearing on the merits of a motion to dismiss alleging lack 
of in personam jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate personal 
jurisdiction is proper by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. The ultimate 
question of whether personal jurisdiction may properly be exercised is a 
question of law, which we review de novo. Id. In its decision letter the 
district court, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and viewing 
the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, determined it did 
not have personal jurisdiction over Hall as a matter of 
law.

 

[¶10] Wyoming courts are 
authorized to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant on any basis which 
is not inconsistent with the Wyoming or United States constitutions. WYO. STAT. 
§ 5-1-107(a) (1997). The due process clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment of 
the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of state courts over the 
person of nonresident defendants.  
O'Bryan, 952 P.2d  at 638. Generally, due process requires that a 
defendant have contacts with the state such that exercise of jurisdiction does 
not offend " 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " Id. 
at 639 (quoting Markby v. St. Anthony Hosp. Sys., 647 P.2d 1068, 1071 (Wyo. 1982), which quotes 
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945)). We have held that the defendant must have at least minimum 
contacts with the forum state to satisfy the due process standard. Markby, 647 P.2d  at 1072-73.

 

[¶11] In her brief, Goodwin 
summarizes her position and urges us to apply a two-step jurisdictional analysis 
to her situation. She suggests that we adopt a position that "[w]ith respect to 
all matters relative to his or her child, a parent is subject to personal 
jurisdiction in the state where the child resides." We have recently had 
occasion to examine this issue in a similar case, O'Bryan v. McDonald, 952 P.2d 636 (Wyo. 1998). In O'Bryan we declined to find the father purposefully availed 
himself of the privilege of acting in Wyoming by voluntarily entering into a 
contract concerning child support and partially performing that contract in the 
state. Id. at 640. Finding solace in 
both our own and the United States Supreme Court's time-honored three-step 
analysis of in personam jurisdiction questions, we will decline to follow 
Goodwin's recommendation and decline to find personal jurisdiction in this case 
as well.

 

[¶12] No issue of general 
jurisdiction of Wyoming courts with respect to Hall is present in this case. 
Goodwin does not allege "continuous and systematic" contact by Hall with the 
State of Wyoming. In O'Bryan, we reiterated our long-standing three-part test 
which defines the outer limits of personal jurisdiction based on a single 
act:

 

1) 
the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the 
forum state or of causing important consequences in that state, 2) the cause of 
action must arise from the consequences in the forum state of the defendant's 
activities, and 3) the activities of the defendant or the consequences of those 
activities must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to 
make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable.

 

O'Bryan, 952 P.2d  at 639 
(citing Amoco Prod. Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co., 886 P.2d 265, 267 (Wyo. 
1994)); see also First Wyoming Bank, N.A., Rawlins v. Trans Mountain Sales and 
Leasing, Inc., 602 P.2d 1219, 1221 (Wyo. 1979).

 

[¶13] Purposeful availment 
is a threshold requirement meant to ensure " 'that a defendant will not be haled 
into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 'random,' 'fortuitous,' or 
'attenuated' contacts.' " O'Bryan, 952 P.2d  at 639 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. 
Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985)). 
Unless the purposeful availment requirement is satisfied, the court will not 
have personal jurisdiction over the nonresident "no matter how strong the 
interest of the plaintiff or the forum state may be in having the suit 
adjudicated there." O'Bryan, 952 P.2d  at 639 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. 
v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 294, 100 S. Ct. 559, 565-66, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1980)); 1 
Robert C. Casad, Jurisdiction in Civil Actions § 2.05 (2d ed. 
1991).

 

[¶14] Goodwin claims that 
Hall purposefully availed himself of the privilege of acting in Wyoming or 
caused important consequences in Wyoming by the service of process in the state 
pursuant to Idaho law. However, Goodwin presents no authority that service of 
process within one state to obtain appearance in a suit brought in another state 
constitutes purposeful availment. We agree with the determination of the 
district court that Hall did not avail himself of Wyoming law in order to 
accomplish service of process. Similarly, when Hall submitted to the 
jurisdiction of the Wyoming court for purposes of determining custody of the 
child pursuant to an interstate 
agreement, he did not "purposefully avail" himself of the privilege of acting in 
Wyoming.

 

[¶15] While we cannot deny 
that Hall's actions had significant consequences for a Wyoming resident and her 
child, we agree with the district court's finding that Hall's actions also had 
significant consequences in Idaho, "for it was Idaho's legal process and Idaho's 
courts that were subverted by Hall's actions." Finally, we are also in accord 
with the district court's opinion that "the Idaho courts should have the 
opportunity to address [Hall's] alleged actions and to deal appropriately with 
them." The district court considered the other prongs of the test for personal 
jurisdiction and determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Hall in this 
matter. However, because the threshold 
"purposeful availment" requirement is not satisfied in this case, we need not 
consider the remaining jurisdictional requirements.

 

                                           CONCLUSION

 

[¶16] Goodwin failed to 
establish that Hall had sufficient contacts with Wyoming to require him to come 
to Wyoming to defend her claims against him. Therefore, the district court's 
order dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction is 
affirmed.