PERSONAL JURISDICTION

January 20, 2012

Posted by Norka M. Schell, Esq.

APPEAL FROM U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO,, CLEVELAND

Richard A. Conn, Jr. v. Vladimir Zakaharov

OPINION - Alice M. Butchelder, Chief Judge

An old Russian proverb states, "If you're afraid of wolves, don't go into the forest."  

For the Appellant Richard A. Conn the  proverb might well read, "If you're afraid of the Russian legal system, don't do business in Russia." 

Conn brought an action against Appellee Vladimir Zakharov for breach of contract, a contract that Conn moved to Russia to perform. Conn chose the Northern District of Ohio as the forum for the suit because Zakaharov owns property there and because Conn believed he would not prevail in a Russian court of law. The district court ruled that it did not have personal jurisdiction under Ohio law and dismissed the case. 

The Untied States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirm the decision because under the facts of this case both Ohio law and Due Process Clause proscribes the district court from finding general personal jurisdiction over Zakharov.  

A federal court sitting in diversity may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant unless courts of the forum state would be authorized to do so by state law - and any such jurisdiction must be compatible with the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. "Int'l Techs. Consultants v. Euroglas S.A. 107 F. 3d 386, 391 (6th Cir. 1997).

Deciding whether jurisdiction exists is not an idle or perfunctory inquiry, due process demands that parties have sufficient contacts  with the forum state so that it is fair to subject them to jurisdiction. See Burgen King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). The Due Process Clause gives a degree of predictability to the legal system that allows potential defendants to structure minimum assurance as to where that conduct will and will not render them liable to suits. The court's jurisdiction accordingly extends only to those parties who have in some  fashion placed themselves in the hands of the tribunal. See, e.g. Kerry Steel, Inc. Paragan Indus. Inc. 106 F3d. 147, 150 (6th Cir. 1997). (To be subject to in person jurisdiction...a defendant must purposefully avail [ ] itself to the privilege of conducting activities within the forum States, this invoking the benefits and protections of its law."