Opinion ID: 767757
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Dismissal of Defendants Wayne Case and James Morgan

Text: 70 In a November 28, 1994 Order, Judge LaPlata dismissed Schmitt employees Wayne Case and James Morgan on the grounds that the fiduciary shield doctrine frustrated the court's personal jurisdiction over them. Citing Weller v. Cromwell Oil Co., 504 F.2d 927, 929 (6th Cir. 1974), the court found that personal jurisdiction was lacking because Case and Morgan were acting in their official capacity as agents for Schmitt when they signed the offending letters. 71 In the seminal case of Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1981), the fiduciary shield doctrine is formulated as follows: if an individual has contact with a particular state only by virtue of his acts as a fiduciary of the corporation, he may be shielded from the exercise, by that state, of jurisdiction over him personally on the basis of that conduct. Id. at 902. In that form, the fiduciary shield doctrine prevents the exercise of personal jurisdiction whenever an out-of-state officer's contacts occur by virtue of her official capacity. However, in Weller v. Cromwell Oil Co. the doctrine is stated more mildly: jurisdiction over a corporate officer cannot be predicated merely upon jurisdiction over the corporation. 504 F.2d at 929. 72 Some courts in the Sixth Circuit have followed the Marine Midland Bank formulation, holding that the mere fact that an out-of-state defendant performed the alleged tortious or violative conduct while acting as a corporate agent precludes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over that person. See, e.g., United States v. Flack, No. 2:96-CV-122, 1997 WL 187373 at  (S.D. Ohio January 31, 1997); Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc. v. Augustine Medical, Inc., 800 F.Supp. 1549 (S.D. Ohio 1992). But other courts have found that the exercise of jurisdiction over the agent depends on the extent of that agent's personal involvement in the conduct. See, e.g., State of Ohio v. Browning Ferris Indus. Inc., No. C 86-7387, 1987 WL 16940 (N.D. Ohio March 26, 1987); James v. HRP, Inc., 852 F.Supp. 620 (W.D. Mich. 1994); Morton Walker, D.P.M. v. Robert Concoby, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 1999 WL 1210871 (N.D. Ohio October 12, 1999). These courts exercised personal jurisdiction over corporate officers where the officers were active participants in the tortious conduct. There is support for thisapproach in Sixth Circuit case law. See Chattanooga Corp. v. Klingler, 704 F.2d 903, 906-07 (6th Cir. 1983); Serras v. First Tennessee Bank N.A., 875 F.2d 1212, 1217 (6th Cir. 1989). 73 While it is true that jurisdiction over the individual officers of a corporation cannot be predicated merely upon jurisdiction over the corporation, Weller v. Cromwell Oil Co., 504 F.2d at 929, we hold that the mere fact that the actions connecting defendants to the state were undertaken in an official rather than personal capacity does not preclude the exercise of personal jurisdiction over those defendants. Hence, where an out-of-state agent is actively and personally involved in the conduct giving rise to the claim, the exercise of personal jurisdiction should depend on traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice; i.e., whether she purposely availed herself of the forum and the reasonably foreseeable consequences of that availment. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985); International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). This proposition has been applied by other circuits in the exercise of personal jurisdiction over corporate officers who actively and personally involved themselves in conduct violating the Lanham Act, notwithstanding the fact that the defendants acted as agents when they did so. See, e.g., Committee for Idaho's High Desert v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 823-24 (9th Cir. 1996); Electronic Laboratory Supply Co. v. Cullen, 977 F.2d 798, 807-08 (3d Cir. 1992); Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Craftex, Inc., 816 F.2d 145, 149 (4th Cir. 1987); Donsco, Inc. v. Casper Corp., 587 F.2d 602, 606 (3d Cir. 1978). 74 The district court erred in dismissing Case and Morgan from the suit based merely on the fact that they acted as agents for the corporation. The matter will be remanded for a determination of whether their contacts with the state of Michigan were such that due process permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them.