Opinion ID: 149112
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Personal Jurisdiction over HUK

Text: HUK challenges the district court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over it. Miller v. Holzmann, 2007 WL 778568, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15599 (D.D.C. Mar.6, 2007); United States ex rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert Int'l Constr., Inc., 501 F.Supp.2d 51, 53 & n. 3 (D.D.C.2007). Reviewing the district court's assertion of personal jurisdiction de novo, McAninch v. Wintermute, 491 F.3d 759, 765 (8th Cir. 2007); see also FC Inv. Group LC v. IFX Markets, Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087, 1091 (D.C.Cir.2008) (reviewing dismissal), we hold HUK had sufficient contacts with the United States to subject the company to the jurisdiction of its courts. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant not present within the forum if the defendant has certain minimum contacts with [that forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (internal quotation marks deleted). The exercise of personal jurisdiction must have a basis in 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. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 109, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). Personal jurisdiction is proper where 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. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). HUK argues against personal jurisdiction based upon our decision in Creighton Ltd. v. Gov't of State of Qatar, 181 F.3d 118 (1999). There we held the Government of Qatar lacks the minimum contacts with the United States that would make it amenable to suit here even though it had entered into a contract with a company based in the United States. Id. at 127-28. The contract had been offered, accepted, and performed in Qatar. Id. at 128. In addition, the contract was made subject to the laws of Qatar, payment was made in Qatari riyals to Creighton's bank account in Qatar, and the alleged breach occurred in Qatar. Id. HUK's contacts with the United States were a good deal more substantial than those of Qatar. At all relevant times HUK was, not surprisingly, based in the United Kingdom. It had no office, bank account, real property, or employees in the United States. It was not a party to Contract 20A, nor was it a member of the joint venture that bid for that contract. On the other hand, HUK was intimately involved with the Harbert-Jones Joint Venture bid for Contract 20A. From 1985 to 1988, fully 50% of HUK's work was on the preparation of the bid for Contract 20A and one of its employees signed the tender. HUK knew that the United States Government was funding the contract and that all payments to HUK for work done in connection with the contract were funded by payments from the United States Government via bank accounts in the United States belonging to one of the other Harbert companies. In addition, the district court found, and HUK does not dispute, the following facts: HUK was created by American citizens, acting as agents for ... American corporations, for the specific purpose of providing services to companies that were bidding on projects that were going to be funded by agencies of the United States. Miller v. Holzmann, 2007 WL 39371 at -8, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 501, -26 (D.D.C. Jan.8, 2007). Considering these facts, we conclude the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); see McGee v. Int'l Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220, 223, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957) (personal jurisdiction over Texas company proper in California court based on a contract which had substantial connection with that state). Accordingly, we hold HUK's contacts with the United States were sufficient to give the district court personal jurisdiction over it.