 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Croix Retail9/23/2003
that activity. McGee, 355 U.S. at 223, 78 S. Ct. at 201. Logiciel represents itself as seeking a national clientele and doing business in dozens of states; requiring it to face suit in Minnesota is not unduly inconvenient.
Even where a district court finds a nonresident defendant has the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state, the court must consider whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction"would comport with fair play and substantial justice." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476, 105 S. Ct. at 2184 (quotation omitted). The defendant has the burden to present"a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable." Id. at 477, 105 S. Ct. at 2185.
Logiciel argues its financial status is such that forcing it to face suit in Minnesota would constitute an undue burden. In support, it relies on financial disclosures whose accuracy is contested by Croix. Resolving this factual dispute in Croix's favor, as we must, we conclude Logiciel has not shown Minnesota jurisdiction to be unreasonable here.
Application of the five-factor test leads us to the conclusion Logiciel's contacts with Minnesota—a contract that gave rise to Croix's suit—support the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over Logiciel by this state's courts. Because we so conclude, we do not address Croix's argument Minnesota's exercise of personal jurisdiction over Logiciel is also consistent with due process under the"effects test" established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S. Ct. 1482 (1984).
2. Logiciel contends the district court abused its discretion by not declining jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We disagree.
Dismissal on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens may be appropriate where the exercise of personal jurisdiction"imposes a hardship that does not rise to the level of a due process violation." Rykoff-Sexton, Inc. v. Amer. Appraisal Associates, 469 N.W.2d 88, 91 (Minn. 1991)."The remedy is an equitable one, however, and we review the trial court's determination only for an abuse of discretion." Id. (citation omitted).
There is a presumption that the plaintiff is permitted to choose the forum; however, the court may deny the plaintiff's choice when certain factors weigh heavily in favor of a different jurisdiction. Hague v. Allstate Ins. Co., 289 N.W.2d 43, 46 (Minn. 1978). These factors include (1) ease of access to proof; (2) availability of process for reluctant witnesses; (3) cost of obtaining witness attendance; (4) possibility to view premises; (5) enforceability of judgment; and (6) relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S. Ct. 839, 843 (1947).
Logiciel argues equity requires transferring the case to California because of its dire financial situation and because most of the witnesses are located in California. The record indicates witnesses and evidence are located in both California and Minnesota, and transferring the case would only serve to inconvenience Croix instead of Logiciel. But a"motion to transfer will not be granted if it merely shifts inconvenience from one party to the other." Norval Indus., Inc. v. Superior Coms., Inc. 515 F. Supp. 895, 899 (D. Minn. 1981) (citation and quotation omitted). Because the applicable factors do not weigh heavily in favor of transferring this matter to California, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Logiciel's motion to dismiss under forum non conveniens.
Affirmed.
|