Opinion ID: 2511988
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specific Jurisdiction for SPDF's Tort Claim

Text: In many cases the commission of a tort, in itself, creates a sufficient nexus between a defendant and the forum state that satisfies the due process inquiry and establishes specific jurisdiction. Goettman, 176 P.3d at 69. In such cases, there is no need for further minimum contacts analysis because the defendant is so connected with the forum state that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended by the forum state's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. (citing Classic Auto Sales, Inc. v. Schocket, 832 P.2d 233, 237 (Colo.1992)). In other cases, even if an injury is sustained in the forum state, the defendant's tortious acts may be so remote as to require a closer nexus between the defendant and the state. D & D Fuller CATV Constr., Inc. v. Pace, 780 P.2d 520, 525 (Colo.1989) (citing Scheuer, 684 P.2d at 249 (Colo.1984), and Fleet Leasing, Inc. v. Dist. Court, 649 P.2d 1074 (Colo.1982)). In these cases, the court must analyze whether the defendant has the required minimum contacts with Colorado. D & D Fuller CATV Constr., Inc., 780 P.2d at 525. Here, we find that, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, SPDF's claim of negligent misrepresentation alleged a sufficient nexus between DiNobile and Colorado for the trial court to exercise specific jurisdiction. [4] The affidavits do not address the alleged pre-contract misrepresentations, so we look only at the allegations in SPDF's complaint. SPDF claims that the misrepresentations occurred through telephone and email conversations exchanged between Rhode Island and Colorado. Although the extent of these communications is unclear, SPDF alleges that DiNobile was negligent in representing his skill and expertise throughout the parties' communications. As stated above, in most cases the commission of a tortious act in Colorado is sufficient for a Colorado court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Goettman, 176 P.3d at 69. But even if the tortious act alone is not sufficient in this case, DiNobile's contacts with Colorado are adequate to satisfy due process. The alleged misrepresentations occurred in communications intentionally directed at a Colorado corporation. DiNobile recognized that he was negotiating with a corporation headquartered in Colorado and certainly understood that his communications with SPDF would be received in Colorado. Furthermore, SPDF suffered the alleged injury from DiNobile's tortious conduct in Colorado. Thus, DiNobile had sufficient contacts in Colorado related to the tort claim for the trial court to exercise specific jurisdiction. [5]