Cohen v. Hakim

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware grants Defendant Nouri Edward Hakim’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court holds that Hakim’s incorporation of Admar International, Inc., corporate activities, disputed ownership interest, and status as an officer did not establish specific jurisdiction or consent to jurisdiction under Delaware law.

Holdings

1. Hakim's incorporation of Admar in Delaware and his other alleged corporate activities did not establish specific personal jurisdiction because Cohen's ownership claims lacked the required nexus to those activities.
2. Hakim's disputed ownership of stock in a Delaware corporation did not establish personal jurisdiction because the action did not concern the legal existence, validity, or attributes of the stock itself.
3. Hakim did not consent to personal jurisdiction under 10 Del. C. § 3114(b) because Admar was only a nominal defendant and the alleged wrongful conduct was personal to Hakim rather than conduct undertaken through his corporate powers.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Delaware's long-arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104(c)(1), authorized specific personal jurisdiction over Hakim based on his incorporation of Admar or other corporate activities in Delaware.
2. Whether Hakim consented to personal jurisdiction through his disputed ownership of Admar's stock.
3. Whether Hakim consented to personal jurisdiction under Delaware's officer-and-director consent statute, 10 Del. C. § 3114(b).
4. Whether the action should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

other