Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180720_0001054.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:10:28+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Sac and Fox Nation, Inc. v. Containment Solutions, Inc.
Sac and Fox Nation, Inc. v. Containment Solutions, Inc.
CONTAINMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.
JOHN W. BROOMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This case comes before the court on Defendant Denali, Inc.'s (“Denali”) amended motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 35.) The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision. (Docs. 36, 42, 44.) Denali's motion is GRANTED for the reasons herein.
On a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Continental Motors, Inc., 877 F.3d 895, 903 (10th Cir. 2017). If a defendant challenges the jurisdictional allegations, such as Denali has done here, Plaintiff “must support the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint by competent proof of the supporting facts.” Sunlight Saunas, Inc. v. Sundance Sauna, Inc., 427 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1014 (D. Kan. 2006) (citing Pytlik v. Prof'l Res., Ltd., 887 F.2d 1371, 1376 (10th Cir. 1989)). All factual disputes must be resolved in Plaintiff's favor and, to the extent that they are uncontroverted by Denali's affidavit, “the allegations in the complaint must be taken as true.” Id. (citing Intercon. Inc. v. Bell Atl. Internet Solutions, Inc., 205 F.3d 1244, 1247 (10th Cir.2000) (only well-pled facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, accepted as true)).
“To obtain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a diversity action, a plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” TH Agriculture & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace European Group, Ltd., 488 F.3d 1282, 1286-87 (10th Cir. 2007). Because the Kansas long-arm statute is construed liberally to allow jurisdiction to the full extent permitted by due process, the court ordinarily proceeds directly to the constitutional issue. Id. at 1287 (citing OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086, 1087 (10th Cir. 1998)).
“The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts ties, or relations.'” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985). Therefore a “court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1979). The requisite minimum contacts may be established under one of two theories: “specific jurisdiction” or “general jurisdiction.” If the requisite minimum contacts are met, the court proceeds to determine whether the “assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.” Old Republic Ins. Co., 877 F.3d at 903. General jurisdiction is based on an out-of-state corporation's “continuous and systematic” contacts with the forum state. Id. at 904. Specific jurisdiction exists if the defendant has “‘purposefully directed' his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to' those activities.” Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 472 (internal citations omitted); See Mitchell v. BancFirst, No. 17-2036, 2018 WL 338217, at *2 (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 2018).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.