1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)

ANN P. WILSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0490-CG-N

)

MARY D. BROWN, )

)

Defendant. )

AMENDED ORDER

This matter is before the court on the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction should be granted (Doc. 17)

and the objection of petitioner to the report and recommendation (Doc. 20). On February 8,

2010, this court entered an order, adopting the Magistrate’s report and recommendation, which 

mistakenly stated that no objection had been filed. (Doc. 18). That order was entered in error as

plaintiff did in fact file an objection in the court’s after-hours box. Accordingly, the court’s

order of February 8, 2010 and the accompanying Judgement (Doc. 19) are hereby STRICKEN. 

After a thorough review of plaintiff’s objection, the court still finds that defendant’s

motion to dismiss is due to be granted and that the case should be dismissed for lack of personal

jurisdiction over the defendant. 

The complaint indicates that plaintiff hired the defendant, an attorney with an office in

Salt Lake City, Utah, to represent the plaintiff in her divorce case. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s

complaint seeks damages for the defendant’s professional malpractice. However, defendant

states that she is a resident of the State of Utah who does not do business in Alabama and has no

Case 1:09-cv-00490-CG-N Document 21 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 4
2

purposeful contacts with Alabama. Additionally, “[a]ll of the acts complained of in Plaintiff’s

Complaint occurred in Utah.” (Doc. 11, ¶¶ 3-4).

The Due Process Clause protects one's liberty interests by shielding the individual from

binding judgments in a forum with which she has established no meaningful contacts, ties or

relations. The nature and quality of the contacts varies depending on whether the type of

jurisdiction being asserted is general or specific. Consol. Dev. Corp. v. Sherritt, Inc., 216 F.3d

1286, 1291 (11th Cir. 2000). General jurisdiction exists whenever the defendant's connection

with the forum state is "continuous and systematic"--there need be no nexus between the forum

and the litigation. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984). On

the other hand, a court can assert specific jurisdiction over a person with a more attenuated

connection to the forum when there is a sufficient nexus between the forum and the matter at

issue. Id. at 414, n. 8.

This court clearly does not have general jurisdiction over defendant. The defendant does

not have a continuous and systematic connection with Alabama. For specific jurisdiction to

apply, “[t]he nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum must be such that [s]he has ‘fair

warning’ that a particular activity may subject [her] to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.”

Ruiz de Molina v. Merritt & Furman Insurance Agency, Inc., 207 F.3d 1351, 1356 (11th Cir.

2000) (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)). “A person has fair

warning if [s]he ‘purposefully directs’ [her] activities at the forum, and claims of injury result

from these activities.” Id. To constitute minimum contacts for purposes of specific jurisdiction, a

defendant's contacts with the applicable forum must satisfy three criteria: first, the contacts must

be related to the plaintiff's cause of action or have given rise to it; second, the contacts must

Case 1:09-cv-00490-CG-N Document 21 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 4
3

involve some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting

activities within the forum, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; and third, the

contacts must be such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in

the forum. See Vermeulen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 985 F.2d 1534, 1546 (11th Cir. 1993), cert.

denied, 508 U.S. 907 (1993). There is no evidence that the defendant has any contact with the

State of Alabama, other than the fact that plaintiff, who was defendant’s former client, moved to

Alabama some time after the events that gave rise to this suit occurred.

Plaintiff’s objection contends that the allegations in her complaint should be taken as true

unless the defendant can show otherwise. The complaint states that “[t]his court has personal

and subject matter jurisdiction over the parties.” (Doc. 1, p. 2). However, the defendant has

shown otherwise. Defendant presented evidence concerning her contacts with Alabama, or lack

thereof, and plaintiff has not disputed those facts. The complaint contains no factual allegations

that would support plaintiff’s conclusion that this court has personal jurisdiction over the

defendant and plaintiff submitted no evidence that defendant has any contact with the forum

state. The evidence clearly demonstrates that defendant has no contacts and, therefore, that this

court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. 

Plaintiff’s objection also discusses the merits of her case against the defendant. Plaintiff

concludes that the facts of the case “establish a prima facie demonstration that personal

jurisdiction is warranted by the circumstances.” (Doc. 20, p. 11). However, plaintiff does not

discuss the facts applicable to an analysis of whether this court has personal jurisdiction over the

defendant. Plaintiff does not discuss any facts concerning the defendant’s contacts with the State

of Alabama. If this court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, then this court

Case 1:09-cv-00490-CG-N Document 21 Filed 02/18/10 Page 3 of 4
4

does not have jurisdiction to determine whether plaintiff’s claims against the defendant have

merit. This finding of no personal jurisdiction does not address the merits of the lawsuit at all.

Plaintiff also contends that proper venue is not necessary for a valid judgment. However,

it is jurisdiction, not venue, at issue here. Federal courts only have the power to hear and

determine cases over which Congress has granted them jurisdiction. “The concept of venue, on

the other hand, is concerned not with the constitutional authority of a court to bind parties to a

judgment, but with the statutory propriety of the location for the adjudication of claims.” AM.

JUR. 2D, Federal Courts § 1141 (citation omitted). Venue “is merely intended for the

convenience of the litigants and may be waived. Id. (citations omitted).

CONCLUSION

. After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to

which objection is made, the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge made under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this court and defendant’s motion to

dismiss (Doc. 10) is hereby GRANTED.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00490-CG-N Document 21 Filed 02/18/10 Page 4 of 4