Opinion ID: 1121516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: General and Specific Personal Jurisdiction

Text: To obtain jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, a plaintiff must show: (1) that the requirements of the state's long-arm statute have been satisfied, and (2) that due process is not offended by the exercise of jurisdiction. See Inst. Food Marketing v. Golden State Strawberries, 747 F.2d 448, 452 (8th Cir.1984); Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. v. Delta Intern. Corp., 696 F.2d 1062, 1064 (4th Cir.1982). In the instant case, Trump does not contend that the long-arm statute was not satisfied, and, since Nevada's long-arm statute has been construed to extend to the outer reaches of due process, the two inquiries in the instant case may be collapsed into one. See Certain-Teed Prods. v. District Court, 87 Nev. 18, 23, 479 P.2d 781, 784 (1971). `The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that a defendant be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court.' Tandy Computer Leasing v. Terina's Pizza, 105 Nev. 841, 843, 784 P.2d 7, 7 (1989) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)). Due process requires minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' Mizner v. Mizner, 84 Nev. 268, 270, 439 P.2d 679, 680 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 847, 89 S.Ct. 130, 21 L.Ed.2d 117 (1968) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). See Judas Priest v. District Court, 104 Nev. 424, 426, 760 P.2d 137, 138 (1988); McDermond v. Siemens, 96 Nev. 226, 228, 607 P.2d 108, 109-110 (1980). The defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum such that he or she could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. See Galatz v. District Court, 100 Nev. 408, 413, 683 P.2d 26, 29 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1135, 105 S.Ct. 2673, 86 L.Ed.2d 692 (1985); see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State [must be] such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there). Additionally, the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Judas Priest, 104 Nev. at 426, 760 P.2d at 138. This court's opinions have separated the personal jurisdiction due process inquiry into two separate areas: general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction. General jurisdiction occurs where a defendant is held to answer in a forum for causes of action unrelated to the defendant's forum activities. Budget Rent-A-Car v. District Court, 108 Nev. 483, 485, 835 P.2d 17, 19 (1992) (citing Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 446-47, 72 S.Ct. 413, 419, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952)). General jurisdiction over the defendant is appropriate where the defendant's forum activities are so `substantial' or `continuous and systematic' that it may be deemed present in the forum. Budget Rent-A-Car, 108 Nev. at 485, 835 P.2d at 19 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)); Price and Sons v. District Court, 108 Nev. 387, 390, 831 P.2d 600, 601 (1992). General jurisdiction will only lie where the level of contact between the defendant and the forum state is high. Budget Rent-A-Car, 108 Nev. at 485, 835 P.2d at 19; Price and Sons, 108 Nev. at 390, 831 P.2d at 601; see Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A., 466 U.S. at 416, 104 S.Ct. at 1873 (no jurisdiction in Texas over foreign corporation that sent officers to Texas for a negotiation session, accepted checks drawn on a Texas bank, and sent personnel to Texas to be trained). Absent general jurisdiction, specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant may be established only where the cause of action arises from the defendant's contacts with the forum. Budget Rent-A-Car, 108 Nev. at 486, 835 P.2d at 20; Price and Sons, 108 Nev. at 390, 831 P.2d at 602. A state may exercise specific personal jurisdiction only where: (1) the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of serving the market in the forum or of enjoying the protection of the laws of the forum, or where the defendant purposefully establishes contacts with the forum state and affirmatively directs conduct toward the forum state, and (2) the cause of action arises from that purposeful contact with the forum or conduct targeting the forum. Budget Rent-A-Car, 108 Nev. at 487, 835 P.2d at 20 (citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 444 U.S. at 291, 297, 100 S.Ct. at 564, 567); MGM Grand, Inc. v. District Court, 107 Nev. 65, 69, 807 P.2d 201, 203 (1991); see Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Brainerd v. Governors of the University of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.1989) ([t]he purposeful availment requirement . . . may also be satisfied if the defendant intentionally directed his activities into the forum); Munley v. District Court, 104 Nev. 492, 495-96, 761 P.2d 414, 416 (1988) (the cause of action must have a specific and direct relationship or be intimately related to the forum contacts, which must be significant and substantial, and cannot be random, fortuitous, or attenuated). The criteria for exercising specific in personam jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant has been delineated as follows: The defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or of causing important consequences in that state. The cause of action must arise from the consequences in the forum state of the defendant's activities, and those activities, or the consequences thereof, must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. Jarstad v. National Farmers Union, 92 Nev. 380, 387, 552 P.2d 49, 53 (1976); see Abbott v. Harrah, 90 Nev. 321, 324, 526 P.2d 75, 76 (1974); Certain-Teed Prods. v. District Court, 87 Nev. 18, 23, 479 P.2d 781, 785 (1971); see also McGlinchy v. Shell Chemical Co., 845 F.2d 802, 816 (9th Cir.1988). [I]t is the cumulative significance of all the activities conducted in the jurisdiction rather than the isolated effect of any single activity that is determinative. Abbott, 90 Nev. at 324, 526 P.2d at 76. Furthermore, [i]t is the quality of these contacts, . . . and not the quantity, that confers personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Brainerd, 873 F.2d at 1259. `[W]here a defendant who purposely has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.' Levinson v. District Court, 103 Nev. 404, 408, 742 P.2d 1024, 1026 (1987) (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477, 105 S.Ct. at 2184). The United States Supreme Court has stated that questions involving personal jurisdiction mandate an inquiry into whether it is `reasonable . . . to require [the defendant] to defend the particular suit which is brought there.' World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 444 U.S. at 292, 100 S.Ct. at 564 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 317, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)); see MGM Grand, Inc. v. District Court, 107 Nev. 65, 67, 807 P.2d 201, 202 (1991). Factors relevant to this inquiry are: (1) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; (2) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; and (4) the interest of the several states in furthering substantive social policies. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 444 U.S. at 292, 100 S.Ct. at 564; see Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1032-33, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987); see also MGM Grand, Inc., 107 Nev. at 67-68, 807 P.2d at 202; Judas Priest v. District Court, 104 Nev. 424, 426-27, 760 P.2d 137, 139 (1988). The state has a recognized interest in providing an effective means of redress for its residents. Levinson, 103 Nev. at 408, 742 P.2d at 1026. Trump is a resident of New York. GNLV presented no evidence that Trump: (1) owns any property in Nevada or has any interest in any property in Nevada; (2) has physically entered the state of Nevada; (3) has conducted business in Nevada or engaged in any persistent course of conduct within the state; or (4) derives any revenues from any goods consumed or services rendered within Nevada. However, GNLV introduced evidence as to the following contacts of Trump with Nevada, including those contacts of Ribis attributable to Trump. After Gomes asked DeSanctis to inform the Trump enterprises that Gomes was interested in working for them, Ribis consulted Trump and then contacted Gomes in Nevada to discuss Gomes' potential employment with the Taj Mahal. Trump spoke with Gomes once over the telephone while Gomes was in Nevada. Gomes was given a copy of DeSanctis' employment contract, which was used as the foundation for the development of Gomes' employment contract. Changes were made to the base contract, and drafts were sent back and forth between Ribis in New Jersey and New York and Gomes and his attorney brother in Nevada. An employment agreement was reached and an employment contract was signed by Trump in New York. Gomes signed the contract in Nevada. While the contract identified Gomes as a Nevada resident and provided indemnity for costs and attorneys fees which might result if Gomes were sued because of the contract, it also contained a New Jersey choice-of-law provision. As part of the employment agreement, a trust was also set up for the benefit of Gomes. The trust was to be established in Nevada, through First Interstate Bank of Nevada, and the trust contained a Nevada choice-of-law clause. Trump signed the trust agreement in New York, after which it was forwarded to Gomes, who signed it in Nevada and sent it to the trustee, First Interstate. The Taj Mahal wired money to Nevada into Gomes' personal account and into Gomes' trust account. The contract which Trump is alleged to have induced a breach of was entered into in Nevada, between a Nevada resident and a Nevada corporation, and the effects of the breach were felt by GNLV in Nevada. Because Trump did not maintain any type of continuous and systematic contacts with Nevada, the district court had no general personal jurisdiction over Trump. The specific jurisdiction inquiry is the proper one here because Trump's contacts with Nevada constitute the actions which GNLV asserts facilitated and caused the interference with GNLV's contract for which Trump is being sued. For Trump to be haled into court in Nevada, he must have purposefully availed himself of Nevada's laws or markets or affirmatively directed his conduct toward Nevada, and any connection with Nevada must be more than fortuitous. We conclude that, through the contacts previously described, Trump purposefully directed his conduct toward the forum of Nevada and purposefully availed himself of the laws of Nevada. See FMC Corp. v. Varonos, 892 F.2d 1308, 1313 (7th Cir.1990); Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. v. Delta Intern. Corp., 696 F.2d 1062, 1067, 1069 (4th Cir.1982); Murphy v. Erwin-Wasey, Inc., 460 F.2d 661, 664-65 (1st Cir.1972); Pure, Ltd. v. Shasta Beverages, Inc., 691 F.Supp. 1274, 1278 (D.Haw.1988); Cal Caulfield and Co. v. Colonial Nursing Homes, 642 F.Supp. 777, 781 (D.Kan.1986); Abbott Power Corp. v. Overhead Electric Co., 60 Cal. App.3d 272, 131 Cal.Rptr. 508, 512-14 (1976). Since GNLV's action against Trump directly relates to Trump's contacts with Nevada and arises, in part, from the consequences of Trump's conduct in Nevada, Trump should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in this state. Trump continually negotiated Gomes' contract with Gomes and his attorney brother while Gomes resided in Las Vegas. The negotiations included many telephone calls to Gomes in Nevada, as well as the delivery of many documents, including the offending document, into Nevada. Most significantly, however, Trump specifically targeted Nevada, and purposefully availed himself of the protection of the laws of Nevada, in creating the irrevocable trust which was part of Gomes' employment agreement. The trust established a Nevada trust fund, with First Interstate as the trustee and Trump as the settlor. Trump wired $650,000 into this trust fund from New Jersey. The trust agreement contained a Nevada choice-of-law clause. In creating a Nevada trust with a Nevada choice-of-law provision, Trump should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Nevada. See Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1066, 105 S.Ct. 2143, 85 L.Ed.2d 500 (1985). Despite having minimum contacts with Nevada, Trump could still defeat personal jurisdiction in Nevada if he could make a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction over him in Nevada would be unreasonable. Trump's only argument in this vein is that New Jersey is an alternative forum and GNLV is currently involved in a number of legal disputes before the New Jersey courts and owns land and investments in New Jersey. While this weighs slightly against the exercise of jurisdiction over Trump by the Nevada district court, Nevada has an interest in providing an effective means of judicial redress for its residents. Where possible, a Nevada resident should be able to obtain judicial redress in the most convenient, cost-effective manner, which in this case would be within Nevada. The four reasonableness factors set forth in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980), do not militate against the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Trump in the instant case.