Issue: What is the standard for a motion to dismiss a diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction in the U.S. District Courts in Indiana?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Motion to dismiss a diversity action; Lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Jurisdiction: | Indiana |
| Cited Cases: | 585 F. Supp. 816; 816 F.2d 332; 107 F.3d 1272; 916 F.2d 1239 |
| Cited Statutes: | Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(A) |
| Date: | 07/01/2001 |
When personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating a basis for the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. See RAR, Inc. v. Turner Diesel, Ltd., 107 F.3d 1272, 1276 (7th Cir. 1997); Int’l Steel Co. v. Charter Builders, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 816, 819 (S.D. Ind. 1984). The court may consider affidavits, exhibits and other evidence submitted by the parties in determining whether personal jurisdiction exists. RAR, Inc., 107 F.3d at 1275. It must, however, assume that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is true and construe any disputed jurisdictional facts in the plaintiff’s favor. Id.
In a diversity case, “a federal district court has personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant ‘only if a court of the state in which it sits would have such jurisdiction.'” Wilson v. Humphreys (Cayman) Ltd., 916 F.2d 1239, 1243 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting Turnock v. Cope, 816 F.2d 332, 334 (7th cir. 1987)). As the Indiana Supreme Court recently made clear, under Indiana law, a two-step analysis must be undertaken in order to determine whether an Indiana court may exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. See Anthem Ins. Cos. v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 730 N.E.2d 1227, 1231-33 (Ind. 2000). First, it must be determined whether there is a basis for jurisdiction under Indiana’s long-arm statute, Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(A). Id. at 1233; Sohacki v. Amateur Hockey Ass’n, 739 N.E.2d 185, 188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Then, only if a […]