Opinion ID: 202048
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specific Jurisdiction Based on Misrepresentation and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims

Text: 94 Also unsuccessful is plaintiffs' argument that specific jurisdiction over HG Limited exists on account of the Partnership's alleged misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. 95 To satisfy the relatedness prong of the constitutional inquiry in a tort case, 96 [t]he evidence produced to support specific jurisdiction must show that the cause of action either arises directly out of, or is related to, the defendant's forum-based contacts. The relatedness requirement is not an open door; it is closely read, and it requires a showing of a material connection. This court steadfastly reject[s] the exercise of personal jurisdiction whenever the connection between the cause of action and the defendant's forum-state contacts seems attenuated and indirect. Instead, the defendant's in-state conduct must form an `important, or [at least] material, element of proof' in the plaintiff's case. A broad but-for argument is generally insufficient. . . . [D]ue process demands something like a `proximate cause' nexus. 97 Harlow, 432 F.3d at 60-61 (citations omitted) (quoting Pleasant St. I, 960 F.2d at 1089; Cambridge Literary Props., 295 F.3d at 65); see also Phillips Exeter Acad., 196 F.3d at 289. None of plaintiffs' claims is sufficiently related to HG Limited's Massachusetts contacts. 98 Plaintiffs allege that Platten was induced to enter into the Agreement by misrepresentations that were made by an agent of the Partnership in Massachusetts and that [t]he scheme to defraud and mislead Platten was furthered by four letters sent to him in Massachusetts from the Partnership's New York lawyers and Matthews himself. They further allege that [t]wo similar letters were sent by Matthews and the Partnership's New York counsel to Flannery in Massachusetts. 11 These letters all dealt with the non-competition and termination distribution clauses of the Agreement, and the plaintiffs' rights and responsibilities thereunder. 12 99 Again, plaintiffs failed to provide any details in their complaint or affidavits about the circumstances surrounding the parties' entry into the Agreement, including any misrepresentations that were made at that time, who may have made them, and in what capacity. Thus, any alleged misrepresentations made by the Partnership at the time of contracting cannot be the basis of specific jurisdiction over HG Limited. 100 As for the correspondence from the Partnership's lawyers and Matthews to Platten and Flannery, that itself does not suffice to show relatedness. See Far W. Capital, Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1077 (10th Cir.1995) (It is well-established that phone calls and letters are not necessarily sufficient in themselves to establish minimum contacts.); see also Nicholas v. Buchanan, 806 F.2d 305, 307-08 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (collecting cases). We are doubtful that the letters even provide a basis for a viable cause of action. Platten and Flannery did not allege reasonable reliance on the purported misrepresentations; thus, any harm that Platten or Flannery suffered did not arise out of those misrepresentations, but instead out of the Partnership's alleged breach of the promise to pay them their termination distributions. In specific jurisdiction terms, plaintiffs have not shown a material connection between their injuries and HG Limited's contacts in Massachusetts and therefore cannot meet the relatedness requirement of the due process inquiry. 13 See Harlow, 432 F.3d at 61. 101 Nor does HG Limited's alleged breach of fiduciary duty satisfy the constitutional standard for asserting specific jurisdiction. A breach of fiduciary duty occurs [in the state] where the fiduciary acts disloyally. Phillips Exeter Acad., 196 F.3d at 291. Thus, for minimum contacts analysis, even if the effects of the alleged breach were felt in Massachusetts, there is no evidence in the record that the alleged breach itself occurred in this state, see id. (concluding that an in-forum effect of an extra-forum breach . . . [was] inadequate to support a finding of relatedness), as opposed to, say, Bermuda, where HG Limited has its usual place of business, or Pennsylvania, from whence Chris Matthews allegedly controlled the Partnership.