Young v. Jones
1992 WL 465607, 816 F.Supp. 1070, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21206 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A foreign defendant's single act of verifying a bank account balance within a forum state for an audit conducted elsewhere does not constitute sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction. Furthermore, the contacts of an affiliated domestic entity cannot be imputed to the foreign defendant under a theory of partnership by estoppel without evidence that the plaintiff extended credit in reliance on a specific representation of a partnership.
Facts:
- Price Waterhouse, Chartered Accountants, a Bahamian partnership (PW-Bahamas), issued an unqualified audit letter regarding the financial statement of Swiss American Fidelity and Insurance Guaranty (SAFIG).
- The audit letter was for a financial statement that allegedly showed SAFIG's sole asset to be a deposit of over $12 million in a South Carolina bank.
- Plaintiffs, a group of investors from Texas, averred that they relied on this audited financial statement.
- Based on their reliance, the plaintiffs deposited $550,000 into a South Carolina bank for investment with SAFIG.
- The SAFIG financial statement was later revealed to be falsified, and the plaintiffs' funds disappeared and were lost.
- PW-Bahamas has no offices, agents, employees, or property in South Carolina, is not registered to do business there, and has never sent anyone to the state on its behalf.
- PW-Bahamas's only direct contact with South Carolina was receiving information from the South Carolina bank to confirm the SAFIG deposit for its audit.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, investors from Texas, filed suit against PW-Bahamas, PW-US, and others in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
- PW-Bahamas filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).
- PW-US filed a motion to be dropped as a party or, alternatively, to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- PW-US later filed an additional motion to be dropped as a party because some of its partners were not diverse from the plaintiffs, which would destroy the court's subject matter jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to drop PW-US and instead sue three individual partners of PW-US who resided in South Carolina to cure the diversity issue.
- The district court considered all three motions in its order.
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 South Carolina have personal jurisdiction over a Bahamian accounting firm whose only contact with the state was verifying a bank deposit for an audit prepared in the Bahamas, and can jurisdiction be established by imputing the contacts of an affiliated U.S. firm under a partnership by estoppel theory?
Opinions:
Majority - Hawkins, Chief Judge
No, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Bahamian firm. For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction, a non-resident defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' PW-Bahamas's single act of verifying a bank deposit in South Carolina for an audit conducted in the Bahamas does not constitute purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the state. The court reasoned that mere foreseeability that the audit letter might reach investors who would deposit funds in South Carolina is insufficient, citing World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that PW-Bahamas and Price Waterhouse-United States (PW-US) were partners by estoppel. Under South Carolina's Uniform Partnership Act, partnership by estoppel requires a representation of partnership and a third party giving credit in reliance on that representation. Here, there was no evidence that plaintiffs extended credit to the alleged partnership or relied on any specific representation that PW-Bahamas and PW-US were partners when making their investment. Therefore, the contacts of PW-US with South Carolina could not be imputed to PW-Bahamas to establish jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the high bar for establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign entities that are part of a global network or brand. It clarifies that a shared brand name and marketing materials suggesting a worldwide organization are not sufficient to create a partnership by estoppel for jurisdictional purposes. The court's strict application of the statutory requirements for partnership by estoppel—specifically the 'giving credit' element—protects legally distinct entities from being haled into court in forums where they have no direct, substantial contacts. This decision reinforces the 'purposeful availment' standard from International Shoe and its progeny, emphasizing that a defendant's own deliberate actions directed at the forum state are required to establish jurisdiction.
Unlock the full brief for Young v. Jones