Summary
The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of claims against two California corporate officers for lack of personal jurisdiction under Ohio’s long-arm statute. The court held that the plaintiff’s ambiguous affidavit did not establish that the officers individually transacted business in Ohio or committed tortious acts there, distinguishing corporate contacts from individual contacts. The court also expressed constitutional doubts about exercising jurisdiction over the officers based on their telephone calls and correspondence made on behalf of the corporations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Ohio's long-arm statute authorized personal jurisdiction over the individual corporate officers based on alleged misrepresentations communicated by telephone or mail and negotiations conducted in Ohio.
- Whether jurisdiction over the corporate defendants could be imputed to the individual officers.
- Whether Weller met his evidentiary burden to establish personal jurisdiction after the individual defendants supported their motion with affidavits.
Holdings
- Personal jurisdiction over individual corporate officers cannot be predicated merely upon jurisdiction over their corporations; the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction based on the officers' own acts or contacts.
- Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.382(A)(3), the tortious act or omission causing the injury must be committed in Ohio.
- When a motion to quash and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is supported by affidavits, the nonmoving party must respond with specific facts establishing jurisdiction and may not rely on ambiguous allegations or pleadings.
Key quotations
“Where a motion to quash and dismiss is filed, supported by affidavits, the non-moving party may not rest upon allegations or denials in his pleadings but his response by affidavit or otherwise must set forth specific facts showing that the court has jurisdiction.” (at 930)
“It is settled that jurisdiction over the individual officers of a corporation cannot be predicated merely upon jurisdiction over the corporation.” (at 931)
“In our opinion, the activities of the officers in behalf of the corporate defendants did not confer jurisdiction over the individuals.” (at 931)
Factual background
Weller, an Ohio resident, entered into two distributor contracts with California-based Cromwell Oil Company for exclusive sales territories in Ohio and Kentucky. He alleged that Harold and Bernard Plotkin, California residents and corporate officers, made misrepresentations in telephone conversations and advertising materials sent from California, and that agents negotiated the second contract in Ohio. The Plotkins submitted affidavits stating that they acted only as corporate officers and had not personally conducted business or committed acts in Ohio; Weller's responding affidavit used ambiguous disjunctive language about whether the Plotkins or the corporation sent materials and agents.
Procedural history
Weller sued Cromwell Oil Company, Cromwell Industries, Inc., and their officers over distributor agreements, alleging contract, fraud, deceptive-trade-practices, Lanham Act, and antitrust violations. The individual officers moved to quash service and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, supporting the motion with affidavits. Weller responded with an affidavit, but the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the individuals; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.