United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
A. KIMBALL United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on Defendant Jonathan
Anthony's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. A
hearing on the matter was held on January 9, 2017. At the
hearing, Plaintiff was represented by Jonathan Bletzacker and
Trent Lowe. Defendant was represented by D. Brian Boggess.
Before the hearing, the court carefully considered the
memoranda and other materials submitted by the parties. Since
taking the matter under advisement, the court has further
considered the law and facts relating to the matter. Now
being fully advised, the court renders the following
Memorandum Decision and Order.
February 2011, Defendant Jonathan Anthony became employed
with APX Alarm (“APX”). In August 2011, APX
changed its name to Vivint, Inc. (“Vivint”).
Vivint is a Utah corporation with its headquarters in Utah
and is the Plaintiff in this action.
2009, Mr. Anthony has been a resident of Missouri. Before
2009, Mr. Anthony was a resident of Kansas and Illinois, but
never of Utah. Mr. Anthony heard about APX and the potential
for a job from another APX employee in St. Louis Missouri.
Mr. Anthony applied for the job through APX's
Missouri-based management. Mr. Anthony was hired as a Field
Service Technician and was given work in and around Saint
Charles, Missouri. He worked for Vivint in Saint Charles,
Missouri, until approximately February 2015 when he was
offered a position as a Service Manager with Vivint in
Anthony has visited Utah only once. He traveled to Utah for
three days of training when he was first hired by APX in
September 22, 2015, Vivint filed a Complaint in this court
against Defendants Craig Bailie, Armor Protection, LLC
(“Armor”), and John Does I-XX. On July 28, 2016,
Vivint filed an Amended Complaint, which added Mr. Anthony as
a Defendant. In relation to Mr. Anthony, the Amended
Complaint alleges that Mr. Anthony had restricted access to
some of Vivint's trade secret information and that Mr.
Anthony conspired together with Mr. Bailie to unlawfully
obtain access to the trade secret information by accessing a
password-protected database, which is located in Utah,
without authorization or by receiving and accepting access to
the trade secret information through a third party, or both.
Vivint then alleges that Defendants used the trade secret
information to approach Vivint customers in Missouri,
Arkansas, and Illinois to convince them to enter into a
contract with Armor. The Amended Complaint was served on Mr.
Anthony at his home address in Missouri.
September 16, 2016, Mr. Anthony filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction claiming that this court lacks personal
jurisdiction over Mr. Anthony.
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Mr. Anthony
argues that he lacks minimum contacts with Utah sufficient
for this court to exercise personal jurisdiction over him.
The court will analyze his arguments below.
federal court proceeding, “[t]he plaintiff bears the
burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the
defendant.” Benhagen v. Amateur Basketball
Ass'n of U.S.A., 744 F.2d 731, 733 (10th Cir. 1984).
“Prior to trial, however, when a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits
and other written materials, the plaintiff need only make a
prima facie showing.” Id. In the court's
analysis of the factual evidence, “[t]he allegations in
the complaint must be taken as true to the extent they are
uncontroverted by the defendant's affidavits.”
Id. “When evaluating the prima facie case, the
court is bound to resolve all factual disputes in favor of
the plaintiff in determining whether he has made the
requisite showing.” AST Sports Science, Inc. v. CLF
Distribution Ltd., 514 F.3d 1054, 1057 (10th Cir. 2008);
see also Benhagen, 744 F.2d at 733 (“If the
parties present conflicting affidavits, all factual disputes
are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, and the
plaintiff's prima facie showing is sufficient
notwithstanding the contrary presentation by the moving
party.”) “If the presence or absence of personal
jurisdiction can be established by reference to the
complaint, the Court need not look further.” Klein
Frank, P.C. v. Girards, 932 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1208-09 (D.
order for a court “to subject a particular defendant to
the decisions of the court, ” the court must first have
personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Rocky Mountain
Claim Staking v. Frandsen, 884 P.2d 1299, 1301 (Utah Ct.
App. 1994). A court may have either general or specific
personal jurisdiction over a defendant. “General
personal jurisdiction permits a court to exercise power over
a defendant without regard to the subject of the claim
asserted and is dependent on a showing that the defendant
conducted substantial and continuous local activity in the
forum state.” Pohl, Inc. of Am. v. Webelhuth,
201 P.3d 944, 949 (Utah 2008) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “Specific personal jurisdiction
gives a court power over a defendant only with respect to
claims arising out of the particular activities of the
defendant in the forum state and only if the defendant has
certain minimum ...