Opinion ID: 4556814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ct. Order of Jan. 29, 2018.

Text: III. Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction over Russ Test Prep pleaded claims of defamation, trade libel, and fraud against Russ. Proceeding pro se, Russ moved to dismiss, stating that there was “NO BASIS [for her] being attached to the complaint; LadyFree28 is not an interested business or party affiliated with AllNurses.com.” She also moved for a protective order and filed a counterclaim. The purported counterclaim did not state a legally cognizable claim for relief, but did state that Russ was a Pennsylvania resident, who had completed her registered nursing studies at “a local university” and had held a nursing license in Pennsylvania for eleven years. The filing also stated that she could not retain a lawyer or find pro bono representation due to the “location of lawsuit and geographical location.” Russ filed two additional pro se motions to dismiss, which reiterated the factual allegations from her counterclaim. Russ’s third motion sought dismissal on due process grounds, stating that Russ “does not live in Minnesota or New Jersey, nor does business in either of the aforementioned states and has lived in Pennsylvania for almost 30 years.” After Russ was finally able to secure pro bono legal representation, her attorney moved for dismissal, arguing that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over Russ and that venue in Minnesota was inappropriate. The district court granted the motion, concluding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Russ and that she had not waived that defense. The court explained: The core argument contained in each of Russ’s pro se pleadings may fairly be summed up as follows: “Why am I being haled into court in Minnesota? I have nothing to do with this dispute!” Although this argument undoubtedly presents a merits challenge, Russ has raised factual issues that implicate jurisdictional and venue challenges as well. -12- D. Ct. Order of Aug. 9, 2018, at 8-9. The court denied Test Prep’s cross-motion for transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Reviewing de novo, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting Russ’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). We likewise conclude that Russ did not waive the defense with her inartful pro se pleadings. Russ’s pro se counterclaim did not state any legal basis for relief but rather explained that Russ—a longtime Pennsylvania resident—was unable to defend herself in Minnesota. Russ’s repeated pro se motions to dismiss were understandable in light of the sprawling nature of the case and Test Prep’s multiple amendments of the complaint. We thus agree with the district court’s characterization of Russ’s pleadings as constituting a challenge to the location of the lawsuit. Cf. Alger v. Hayes, 452 F.2d 841, 844-45 (8th Cir. 1972) (holding that the defendant waived his defense of lack of personal jurisdiction because his conduct did “not reflect a continuing objection to the power of the court to act over the defendant’s person”). Test Prep contends that the district court erred in denying its motion to transfer the case against Russ to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It argues that the court failed to consider whether the claims against Russ would be time barred if Test Prep were required to file suit anew in Pennsylvania. Test Prep also argues that the court erroneously concluded that Test Prep did not address whether transfer would be in the interests of justice. The record belies these arguments. In its motion to transfer and memorandum in support of the motion, Test Prep did not explain that the statute of limitations had run in Pennsylvania; nor did it set forth any substantive arguments regarding whether the interests of justice required transfer instead of dismissal. Test Prep merely stated -13- that “the Eighth Circuit requires courts to consider whether the case should be transferred rather than dismissed” and cited cases to support that assertion. In light of the scant argument Test Prep presented in its motion papers, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer.7 See Everett v. St. Ansgar Hosp., 974 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of review).