Opinion ID: 2511988
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Specific Jurisdiction for SPDF's Contract Claim

Text: A court may exercise specific jurisdiction where the alleged injury arises out of and is related to activities that are significant and purposefully directed by the defendant at residents of the forum. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). For a defendant to be subject to specific jurisdiction, the court must determine: (1) whether the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state, and (2), whether the litigation arises out of the defendant's forum-related contacts. Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194 (internal quotations omitted). Using this analytical framework, we must determine whether, based on the documentary evidence presented to the trial court, SPDF presented sufficient evidence supporting its breach of contract claim for the trial court to exercise specific jurisdiction over DiNobile. The evidence in this case includes SPDF's complaint, an affidavit from Michelle Clarke (SPDF's Education Program Manager), an affidavit from DiNobile, and a copy of the executed agreement. From this evidence we must determine whether DiNobile purposefully availed himself of the privilege of doing business in Colorado and whether SPDF's claims arise out of DiNobile's contacts. See Goettman, 176 P.3d at 69.
As to the first part of this analysis, [t]he purposeful availment requirement precludes personal jurisdiction resulting from `random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts.' Id. (quoting Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Heliqwest Int'l, Ltd., 385 F.3d 1291, 1296 (10th Cir.2004)). The actions taken by the defendant are significant in determining whether the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state. Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194. If the defendant deliberately created continuing obligations with the forum state, he has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there. Id. (citing Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., 40 P.3d 1267, 1271 (Colo.2002)). The evidence presented to the trial court demonstrates that the parties' agreement required, and resulted in, significant contacts between DiNobile and SPDF. The complaint contains a statement of jurisdiction that reads: [The Araphahoe County District Court] has jurisdiction over this matter and personal jurisdiction over [DiNobile] because [DiNobile] entered into a contract with SPDF in Arapahoe County, Colorado, in September of 2008 and [DiNobile] represented that [he] could perform the work required by the contract, a representation upon which SPDF reasonably relied. A substantial portion of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Arapahoe County, Colorado. Furthermore, the complaint states that Colorado has a substantial interest in this matter as it involves wrongs committed against a Colorado public charity which therefore affects the People of the State of Colorado. Clarke's affidavit highlights the amount of work the agreement required SPDF to perform and the actions taken by DiNobile in the course of conducting business with a Colorado nonprofit corporation. See Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194. She states that she worked with DiNobile on two prior projects in Colorado for a previous employer. For these projects, DiNobile traveled to Colorado on numerous occasions. Pertaining to the contract at issue here, Clarke states that all negotiations on behalf of SPDF were conducted by email or telephone communications originating in Colorado. Clarke signed the agreement in Colorado on behalf of SPDF. Clarke states that SPDF's executive director, Dr. Lucy Miller, invested hundreds of hours in the development of the E-Learning program content. All core content for the E-Learning program was developed by Dr. Miller and SPDF in the State of Colorado, including conversion of power point material into storyboards, editing and expanding on storyboard content, preparing graphics and video recording of Dr. Miller as well as her audio narration. In addition, all phases of testing of the E-Learning program were conducted by SPDF in Colorado as well as development of a website landing page and pre-launch registration and payment functionality, content and graphics for the E-Learning portal, and administration of E-Learning users. The program content is the proprietary material of SPDF. Clarke never traveled outside the state of Colorado concerning the agreement. Clarke claims that all contacts by SPDF with DiNobile originated in Colorado. Clarke estimates that she personally had hundreds of e-mail and telephone communications with Mr. DiNobile from Colorado. DiNobile's affidavit highlights the activities that took place outside Colorado. He states that he did not solicit business from SPDF, rather an SPDF representative contacted him in Rhode Island. DiNobile drafted the agreement in Rhode Island and sent it to SPDF in Colorado. DiNobile signed the final agreement in Rhode Island. He states that he performed all of the services required by the agreement in Rhode Island. Neither DiNobile nor his representatives performed any work in Colorado. Finally, DiNobile claims that he has never traveled to Colorado in furtherance of this Agreement or to transact any business with Plaintiff in Colorado. The agreement itself provides guidance as to whether DiNobile availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Colorado and whether DiNobile deliberately created continuing obligations with Colorado. See Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194. At the outset, the agreement states that it is entered into between [DiNobile] and [SPDF] for the design and development of four e-learning modules by [DiNobile] as more particularly described [herein]. Per the agreement, DiNobile would collect any e-commerce revenue and remit seventy percent to SPDF. DiNobile was to charge SPDF a monthly hosting/usage fee. Travel expenses incurred in performance of the agreement were to be invoiced separately, and DiNobile was to provide SPDF an estimate of any such expenses. DiNobile would host the e-learning modules within an online learning environment. Current users would be directed from SPDF's web site to the learning portal, and prospective users would be directed to a website hosted by DiNobile to facilitate the financial transaction. In the section of the agreement titled Program Development, the parties stated that [t]he following outlines the various phases of program development and the deliverables output from each phase. SPDF will be an active partner within each of these phases and will assign a project resource to assist in project management, analysis and design, and final course delivery and implementation. As part of the project, DiNobile was to produce detailed storyboards for elements of the program and then send the storyboards to SPDF for its approval. SPDF was required to approve each storyboard individually before the next phase of development begins. DiNobile's programmers were then to use an approved design document along with the approved storyboards as their main program specifications. The agreement further stated that SPDF had the ability to test the program extensively before it was completed and launched. The test feedback would be analyzed by SPDF and DiNobile, and approved changes would be submitted to DiNobile. After any corrections, SPDF would then approve the final version of the program. Finally, DiNobile was to deliver the final version via an externally hosted learning portal, which SPDF was again required to approve. The agreement also identifies specific individuals and their duties under the agreement. For SPDF, Dr. Miller was to oversee the overall project and was responsible for approval of key milestones and deliverables. She was also to provide all subject matter expertise for the program content. Clarke was the key point of contact at SPDF for all project resources. She would provide specific support to project resources related to content, design, development, and implementation. Clarke was also to manage the pilot testing process. For Interactive Design Consultants, DiNobile was the key point of contact. He would provide the final program master to the client and assist in its implementation and deployment. He would also provide technical support during design, development, and deployment. Based on this evidence we conclude that SPDF adequately established that Colorado has specific jurisdiction for its contract claim. We determine that the documentary evidence is adequate to show that DiNobile purposefully directed his business to SPDF, a resident of Colorado. Although controlling cases have suggested that a contractual relationship alone is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, see Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174, here DiNobile had numerous additional contacts with Colorado. The agreement required that significant work be performed in Colorado by SPDF and outside Colorado by DiNobile. DiNobile communicated extensively with SPDF representatives in Colorado concerning their duties under the agreement. Per the agreement, DiNobile was required to send various parts of the project to SPDF in Colorado for its approval and was also required to remit a percentage of e-commerce payments to SPDF. DiNobile pursued a business relationship with a corporation that was, at all relevant times, headquartered in Colorado. In these situations, the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that an absence of physical contacts can defeat personal jurisdiction. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (also noting that it is an inescapable fact of modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines). The contacts here are not random, fortuitous, or attenuated in nature and sufficiently establish that DiNobile purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Colorado. See Goettman, 176 P.3d at 67.
The second step of our specific jurisdiction inquiry asks whether the litigation arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state. Id. at 69. To meet this requirement, the actions of the defendant giving rise to the litigation must have created a `substantial connection' with the forum state. Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1194. SPDF's contract claim centers on the provisions of the agreement, which were negotiated by the parties between Rhode Island and Colorado, and DiNobile's failure to adequately perform under that agreement. Thus, we conclude that SPDF's breach of contract claim arises directly out of DiNobile's contacts with Colorado. DiNobile's actions under the agreement, as described above, created a substantial connection with Colorado and are sufficient to satisfy this part of the specific jurisdiction analysis.