Opinion ID: 2824385
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: A court may exercise general jurisdiction over a [nonresident defendant] when its contacts with the forum state are so continuous and systematic as to render [the defendant] essentially at home in the forum State. Viega, 130 Nev. at , 328 P.3d at 1156-57 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. „ 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)); see also Arbella Mut. Ins. Co., 122 Nev. at 513, 134 P.3d at 712 ([G]eneral personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant's forum state activities are so substantial or continuous and systematic that it is considered present in that forum and thus subject to suit there, even though the suit's claims are unrelated to that forum. (internal quotations omitted)). A general jurisdiction inquiry calls for an appraisal of a [defendant's] activities in their entirety, nationwide and worldwide. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. n.20, 134 S. Ct. 746, 762 n.20 (2014). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 8 (0) 1947A In support of its prima facie showing of general personal jurisdiction over Fulbright & Jaworski, 5 Verano introduced evidence showing that a Fulbright & Jaworski attorney was a registered lobbyist during both the 2007 and 2009 Nevada legislative sessions and that seven Fulbright & Jaworski attorneys had been admitted pro hac vice in Nevada for the purpose of representing two different clients in lengthy litigation, stemming back to the early 2000s and unrelated to the underlying litigation, that resulted in multi-million dollars of verdicts. Contrary to the district court's conclusion that this evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie showing of general jurisdiction over Fulbright & Jaworski, we are not persuaded. In isolation, the evidence of Fulbright & Jaworski's activities in Nevada may arguably be substantial, but those activities presumably comprise only a fraction of Fulbright & Jaworski's overall business. See Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at n.20, 134 S. Ct. at 762 n.20. Thus, in this case, we conclude that a registered lobbyist during two legislative sessions and pro hac vice appearances by Fulbright & Jaworski attorneys in two lengthy lawsuits in Nevada that result in jury verdicts in their clients' favor are not substantial activities that are so continuous and systematic that Nevada can be considered Fulbright & Jaworski's home. To conclude otherwise would subject Fulbright & Jaworski to suit in Nevada in connection with any claim that any of its clients throughout the world may 5Although the district court also determined that Macon was subject to general jurisdiction in Nevada, the basis for that determination is unclear, as the record contains no evidence to suggest that Macon's contacts with Nevada were such that she could be subject to general personal jurisdiction. Thus, we do not further discuss this issue as it pertains to Macon. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 9 (0) 1947A have against the firm. See Arbella Mut. Ins. Co., 122 Nev. at 513, 134 P.3d at 712. Based on this reasoning, we conclude that Verano failed to make a prima facie showing that petitioners were subject to general personal jurisdiction, and the district court improperly used general jurisdiction as a basis for denying petitioners' motion to dismiss. Verano has not made a prima facie showing of specific personal