United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
Nuffer District Judge
Eastpoint Recovery Group LLC (“Eastpoint”) filed
a motion (“Motion”) to dismiss Plaintiff Clinton
Strange's First Amended Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2)
for lack of personal jurisdiction.
on the evidence presented, the following findings are
is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business in New York. It is engaged in the business of debt
collection. It is not licensed to conduct business in Utah.
It does not conduct business in Utah. It does not have an
office or employees in Utah. It does not own, lease, or
control any property in Utah. And it did not place any calls
to Strange in Utah.
resides in Louisiana. All of the telephone calls at issue in
this case were made to No. with area codes 318 or
Neither of these area codes is in Utah.
on these findings, the following conclusions of law are
court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign
(sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any
and all claims against them when their affiliates with the
State are so ‘continuous and systemic' as to render
them essentially at home in the forum
state.” A corporation's domicile for purposes
of this analysis is the place where it is incorporated or its
principal place of business. New York is both Eastpoint's
state of incorporation and principal place of business.
in exceptional cases, a corporate defendant's operations
in another forum may be so substantial as to render the
corporation “at home” there,  this is not one
of those cases. Eastpoint does not have sufficient contacts
with Utah to render it “at home” here.
Accordingly, Strange has failed to demonstrate that Utah has
personal jurisdiction over Eastpoint.
exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Eastpoint in
Utah, there must be sufficient acts related to Strange's
claims by which Eastpoint purposely availed itself of the
privilege of conducting activities in Utah. This analysis
“focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the
forum and the litigation.” Relationships with a
plaintiff or third parties, standing alone, are an
insufficient basis for specific jurisdiction.
“[T]here must be an affiliation between the forum and
the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an
occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is
therefore subject to the State's regulation. When there
is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking
regardless of the extent of a defendant's unconnected
activities in the State.”
is insufficient evidence to establish that Eastpoint
purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting
activities in Utah related to the claims in this case. As a
result, Strange's claims against ...