Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholdt, Richardson & Poole, P.A.
184 F. Supp. 2d 55 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Personal jurisdiction cannot be established over a non-resident defendant based solely on the defendant's knowledge that a plaintiff is performing services for them from within the forum state. To satisfy due process, the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum's benefits and protections, which requires more than just a contractual relationship with a forum resident whose services are performed there.
Facts:
- Between 1993 and 1997, Professor Richard Daynard, from his office in Massachusetts, provided specialized advice on tobacco litigation to the Scruggs law firm (Mississippi defendants) and the Ness law firm (South Carolina defendants).
- The relationship originated in 1993 when members of the South Carolina firm traveled to Massachusetts to seek Daynard's expertise.
- The Mississippi defendants themselves had minimal direct contact with Massachusetts; they maintained no partners, employees, or property in the state and never met with Daynard there.
- In August 1996, Daynard and Mr. Scruggs of the Mississippi firm met in Chicago, Illinois, and allegedly entered into an oral agreement for Daynard to receive 5% of the firms' attorneys' fees from the State Tobacco Litigation.
- The Mississippi defendants knew Daynard was performing his advisory work for them from his office in Massachusetts.
- After the State Tobacco Litigation settled for billions of dollars, the defendant firms received millions in fees but paid nothing to Daynard.
- In November 1997, the Mississippi defendants formally disavowed the alleged oral agreement.
- The Mississippi and South Carolina firms collaborated on various state tobacco cases but were not in a formal partnership or agency relationship that gave one control over the other's actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Richard Daynard filed a complaint in a Massachusetts state court against the South Carolina defendants and the Mississippi defendants.
- The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The South Carolina defendants consented to personal jurisdiction and filed an answer to the complaint.
- The Mississippi defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
- The court held an initial hearing and granted Daynard's request for jurisdictional discovery on the relationship between the two defendant firms.
- After discovery, the court held a second hearing on the Mississippi defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court in Massachusetts have specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant law firm whose only connections to the forum state are receiving communications and work product from a plaintiff located there, when the underlying contract was formed outside the forum state?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, Chief Judge
No. A federal court in Massachusetts lacks personal jurisdiction over the Mississippi defendants because their contacts with the forum do not satisfy the "purposeful availment" requirement of the Due Process Clause. The court applied the First Circuit's tripartite analysis for specific jurisdiction (relatedness, purposeful availment, reasonableness) and found the purposeful availment prong was not met. The Mississippi defendants' connection to Massachusetts was solely a result of Daynard's residence there; they did not voluntarily reach out to create a relationship in the state or avail themselves of the benefits of Massachusetts law. Citing Sawtelle, the court held that the mere existence of a professional relationship with a forum resident is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The court also rejected the argument that the South Carolina defendants' contacts could be attributed to the Mississippi defendants, finding under the Donatelli test that there was no evidence the Mississippi firm exercised "substantial influence" over the South Carolina firm's in-forum activities.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the constitutional principle that a plaintiff's unilateral activities within a forum cannot create personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. It illustrates the high bar for satisfying the "purposeful availment" prong, particularly in cases involving professional services performed for out-of-state clients where the relationship was not initiated by the defendant in the forum. The court's application of the `Donatelli` test for attributing contacts between collaborators provides a clear framework for analyzing jurisdiction in cases involving joint ventures, emphasizing that mere collaboration is insufficient without evidence of substantial control over the in-forum conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholdt, Richardson & Poole, P.A.