Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-04-04181/USCOURTS-ca10-04-04181-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STA TES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 10 2005 

PATRICK FISHER 

Clerk 

WORLD WIDE ASSOCIATION OF 

SPECIAL TY PROGRAMS AND 

SCHOOLS, a Utah corporation, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

V. 

THOMAS G. HOULAHAN, a foreign 

individual, 

Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 04-4181 

(D.C. No. 2:04-CV-107-DAK) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HENRY, BRISCOE, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.l(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the 

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court 

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order 

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 04-4181 Document: 010110617310 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Page: 1
Plaintiff World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, an 

association of specialty schools for troubled teens, filed this diversity case 

alleging defamation and intentional interference with prospective economic 

advantage. The district court granted defendant Thomas G. Houlahan's motion 

for dismissal, based on lack of personal jurisdiction. We affirm. 

Background Facts 

The World Wide Association of Speciality Programs and Schools (the 

association) maintains its principal place of business in St. George, Utah. 

Mr. Houlahan, a reporter who resides in Washington, D.C., researched a story for 

United Press International about alleged abuse at association schools located in 

New York, South Carolina, Jamaica, and Mexico. In its lawsuit, the association 

alleged that, while investigating the story, the reporter made defamatory 

statements to potential students, former students, parents of potential and former 

students, an employee of a state agency responsible for licensing a member 

school, and a Utah attorney who had filed numerous suits against plaintiff. At the 

time of the contacts, these individuals were located in Alaska, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and California. 

Discussion 

The association asserts that, under Utah's long-arm statute, the court was 

authorized to exercise specific jurisdiction over Mr. Houlahan because the alleged 

-2-

Appellate Case: 04-4181 Document: 010110617310 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Page: 2
acts caused injury in Utah: harm to the association's sole source of funding - the 

dues paid by member schools. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-24. 1 

"This Court reviews the district court's ruling on personal jurisdiction de novo." 

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Intern., Ltd., 385 F .3d 1291, 1296 (10th 

Cir. 2004). "The burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant 

is on the plaintiff." Id. at 1295. Where, as here, "the evidence presented on the 

motion to dismiss consists of affidavits and other written materials the plaintiff 

need only make a prima facie showing. The district court must resolve all factual 

disputes in favor of the plaintiff." Id. (citations omitted). 

The Utah Long-Arm statute is to be "applied so as to assert jurisdiction 

over nonresident defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the due process 

clause." Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-22. And to satisfy the constitutional 

requirement of due process there must be "'minimum contacts' between the 

defendant and the forum State." World-Wide Volkswagen Co. v. Woodson, 

444 U.S. 286,291 (1980) (quoting Int'! Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 

over: 

The Utah long-arm statute authorizes an exercise of specific jurisdiction 

Any person ... whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who 

in person or through an agent does any of the following enumerated 

acts, submits himself ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state 

as to any claim arising out of or related to: ... (3) the causing of 

any injury within this state whether tortious or by breach of warranty. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 04-4181 Document: 010110617310 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Page: 3
316 ( 1945)). "When the 'defendant has purposely directed his activities at 

residents of the forum,' courts in that state may exercise specific jurisdiction in 

cases that 'arise out of or relate to those activities."' Bell Helicopter Textron, 

385 F.3d at 1296 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 

(1985) (further quotations omitted)). 

To support specific jurisdiction, there must be "some act by which the 

defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities 

within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." 

Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235. 253 (1958); see also Fidelity and Cas. Co. of 

N. Y. v. Phila. Resins Corp., 766 F.2d 440, 445 (10th Cir. 1985) (quoting Hanson, 

357 U.S. at 253). The requirement of "purposeful availment" rules out personal 

jurisdiction as the result of "random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts." 

Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475 (further quotation omitted). In the instant case, the 

district court correctly determined that the record lacked any evidence of the 

requisite purposeful availment. 

Plaintiff also asserts that the court abused its discretion by denying limited 

discovery designed to uncover the publication of defamatory comments in Utah. 

See Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step T-,,vo, SA., 318 F.3d 446, 458 (3rd Cir. 2003) 

(determining that district court erred in denying plaintiff's "specific, nonfrivolous," and "reasonable" request for jurisdictional discovery, in order to "help 

-4-

Appellate Case: 04-4181 Document: 010110617310 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Page: 4
determine whether jurisdiction exists under the federal long-arm statute"). 

Plaintiff apparently made a general request for discovery in its response to 

defendant's dismissal motion. In the absence of an explicit, supported motion for 

discovery, this court cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying the request. 

Appellant's motion to file a reply brief out of time and motion to resubmit 

reply with proper address are GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

Robert H. Henry 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 04-4181 Document: 010110617310 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Page: 5
Appellate Case: 04-4181 Document: 010110617310 Date Filed: 05/10/2005 Page: 6