Court Opinion

ID: 9710444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:10:11.225691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:56.972301
License: Public Domain

BROOK, Chief Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in the majority's reversal of the dismissal of Brockman's suit, but I respectfully take issue with the majority's analysis in two significant respects.
First, although I agree with the majority that a trial court should (indeed, must) engage in a two-step analysis to determine whether it has personal jurisdiction, I am puzzled by the majority's consideration of Brockman's interference claim in its Trial Rule 4.4(A) analysis and its consideration of his defamation claim in its due process analysis. In my view, the two-step analysis should be applied to the same claim for consistency's sake and to avoid any possibility of error. It is conceivable that the acts alleged in the first of two claims against a single defendant would fail to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction under the first prong, whereas the acts alleged in the second claim would fail to provide a basis for personal jurisdiction under the second prong; in such a case, one could argue that the trial court would lack personal jurisdiction over both claims.
Second, I am troubled by the majority's conclusion that Trial Rule 4.4(A)(2) applies to Brockman's interference claim, specifically that Kravic's alleged interference with his parental relationship constitutes a "personal injury" and that the publication of Kravie's letters in Indiana constitutes a jurisdictional "act" under the rule. In my view, Kravie's contacts with Indiana more properly fall under Trial Rule 44(A)(4), in that he "supplied) services rendered ... in this state" by writing the letters to Guerrero's attorney that are the basis for Brockman's claims.
Nevertheless, I agree with the majority's conclusion that the trial court has personal jurisdiction over Kravic and that the assertion thereof would not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." See Anthem, 730 N.E.2d at 1283-34. Therefore, I concur in result.