Opinion ID: 2633731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedure for Addressing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Text: Our recent decision in Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Lukoil, 123 P.3d 1187 (Colo.2005), articulates the principles that govern the type of jurisdictional challenge that presents itself here. Id. at 1191-95. In its discretion, a court may address a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on documentary evidence alone or by holding an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 1192. When making this determination, a court should consider whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is unfair to force an out-of-state defendant to incur the expense and burden of a trial on the merits in the local forum without first requiring an evidentiary hearing on the issue of personal jurisdiction. Id at 1193 (internal quotation omitted). A court may properly invoke an evidentiary hearing when, for example, the proffered evidence is conflicting and the record is rife with contradictions, or when a plaintiffs affidavits are patently incredible. Id. However, courts should be wary of adjudicating the jurisdictional issue with an evidentiary hearing where the jurisdictional facts are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the case, because doing so could endanger the plaintiffs substantive right to a jury trial. Id. (citing Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Can., 46 F.3d 138, 149 (1st Cir.1995), which states: This method [of holding an evidentiary hearing) must be used discreetly, id. at 146). Evidentiary hearings contemplate binding adjudication and the court's factual findings on the jurisdictional issue could later have a preclusive effect against a party. Archangel, 123 P.3d at 1193. The trial court in this case decided to address Hydramatic's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on documentary evidence alone. Neither Hydramatic nor Goettman requested an evidentiary hearing from the trial court. Moreover, the parties did not challenge the decision at trial and do not raise the issue in this appeal. [2] For this reason, we will not disturb the trial court's decision to address the motion on documentary evidence alone. When a court decides to rule on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on documentary evidence alone, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat the motion. [3] Id. at 1192. A prima facie showing exists where the plaintiff raises a reasonable inference that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. Documentary evidence consists of the allegations in the complaint, as well as affidavits and any other evidence submitted by the parties. Id. A court may not resolve disputed material issues of jurisdictional fact in a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without holding a hearing. Id. Thus, when a court elects to address such a motion on documentary evidence alone, the allegations in the complaint must be accepted as true to the extent that they are not contradicted by the defendant's competent evidence. Id. Where the parties' competent evidence presents conflicting facts, the discrepancies must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff. Id. As we articulated in Archangel, the purpose of a light prima facie burden of proof at this early stage of litigation is to screen out cases in which personal jurisdiction is obviously lacking and those in which the jurisdictional challenge is patently bogus. Id. (internal quotation omitted).