Archive | Personal jurisdiction

RSS feed for this section

Buckles v. Continental Resources, Inc.

Buckles v. Continental Resources, Inc., 2017 MT 235 (Sept. 21, 2017) (Shea, J.; McKinnon, J., dissenting) (6-1, rev’d)

Issue: Whether the district court erred by dismissing Buckles’ Complaint on the grounds that Continental Resources is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Montana.

Short Answer: Yes.

Reversed & remanded for an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction

Facts: On April 28, 2014, Zachary died in North Dakota of exposure to high levels of hydrocarbon vapors while manually gauging crude oil production tanks on Continental’s Columbus Federal 2-16H well site near Alexander, North Dakota. Continental oversees operation of the Columbus Federal 2-16H well site from its corporate office in Sidney, Montana.…

Tyrrell v. BNSF Railway Co.

Tyrrell v. BNSF Railway Co., 2016 MT 126 (May 31, 2016) (Shea, J.; McKinnon, J., dissenting) (6-1, aff’d & rev’d) (consolidated appeals)

Issue: (1) Whether Montana courts have personal jurisdiction over BNSF under FELA, and (2) whether Montana courts have personal jurisdiction over BNSF under Montana law.

Short Answer: (1) Yes, and (2) yes.

Affirmed (denial of BNSF’s motion to dismiss) and reversed (granting BNSF’s motion to dismiss)

Facts: In March 2011, Nelson, a North Dakota resident, sued BNSF in Montana to recover damages for injuries sustained in his employment with BNSF. BNSF is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Nelson does not allege that he ever worked in Montana or was injured in Montana.…

Garza v. Forquest Ventures, Inc.

Garza v. Forquest Ventures, Inc., 2015 MT 284 (Sept. 29, 2015) (Baker, J.) (5-0, aff’d & rev’d)

Issue: (1) Whether the district court correctly determined that Plaintiffs-Investors timely asserted their claims under the Montana Securities Act; (2) whether the district court correctly determined that the non-Garza Investors’ claims relate back to the original complaint’s filing date; (3) whether the district court correctly determined there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding Forquest’s failure to use reasonable care in its sale of securities; and (4) whether the district court correctly held that Advanced Analytical could not “unintentionally” waive its right to raise personal jurisdiction by filing an empty 12(b)(6) motion.

Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) yes; (3) yes; and (4) no.…

Milky Whey, Inc. v. Dairy Partners, LLC

Milky Whey, Inc. v. Dairy Partners, LLC, 2015 MT 18 (Jan. 27, 2015) (Baker, J.; McGrath, C.J., dissenting) (5-2, aff’d)

Issue: (1) Whether seller’s notice of appearance was responsive pleading barring it from subsequently raising lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) whether Montana had personal jurisdiction over seller.

Short Answer: (1) No; and (2) no.

Affirmed

Facts: Milky Whey (MW) is registered Montana corporation based in Missoula, supplying food manufacturers with dairy commodities. Dairy Partners (DP) is a dairy supply company in Minnesota that sells products to brokers like MW. From 2010-2013, MW and DP completed nine purchase orders via phone, fax, or email. Most involved DP contacting MW in Montana.

On Jan. 23, 2013, DP prepaid $12,500 to buy 10,000 lbs.…