Opinion ID: 202048
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: General Jurisdiction over HG Limited

Text: 102 Plaintiffs argue that general jurisdiction also exists over HG Limited by virtue of its parent-subsidiary relationship with HGI and of Platten's activities, as a partner, in Massachusetts. 103 General jurisdiction [may] exist[] when the defendant has engaged in `continuous and systematic activity' in the forum, even if the activity is unrelated to the suit. Daynard, 290 F.3d at 51 (quoting Pleasant St. I, 960 F.2d at 1088). The standard for evaluating whether [defendants' alleged] contacts satisfy the constitutional general jurisdiction test `is considerably more stringent' than that applied to specific jurisdiction questions. Noonan, 135 F.3d at 93 (quoting Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co., 744 F.2d 213, 216 (1st Cir.1984)). 104 The bar is set even higher in a case like this one, in which plaintiffs seek to disregard the corporate form. The mere fact that a subsidiary company does business within a state does not confer jurisdiction over its nonresident parent, even if the parent is sole owner of the subsidiary. There is a presumption of corporate separateness that must be overcome by clear evidence. . . . Escude Cruz v. Ortho Pharm. Corp. 619 F.2d 902, 905 (1st Cir.1980) (citation omitted); see also Donatelli v. Nat'l Hockey League, 893 F.2d 459, 465 (1st Cir.1990); My Bread, 233 N.E.2d at 752 (elaborating the contours of the corporate disregard doctrine). 105 Relying primarily on Platten's affidavits, plaintiffs argue that HG Limited engaged in continuous and systematic activities in Massachusetts through the Partnership's active control over HGI's Boston office and through Platten, who routinely engaged in Partnership business in Massachusetts. 106 Again, there is no reason to disregard the corporate form in this case. Ultimately, nothing in the record substantiates the proposition that HG Limited plainly made a choice to avail itself of the forum's benefices. Donatelli, 893 F.2d at 466. No personal jurisdiction, specific or general, exists over the defendant. 107