Bill Beverage Et Ux v. Pullman & comley/morris
316 P.3d 590
Ariz.2014Background
- Bill and Sue Beverage (Arizona residents) retained Connecticut lawyer D. Robert Morris and Pullman & Comley, LLC to prepare a tax-opinion letter for a tax-shelter transaction.
- The opinion letter incorporated information specific to the Beverages (amounts, repayment terms, parties, and motives).
- Plaintiffs sued in Arizona state court; the defendants (Connecticut lawyers) contested Arizona's personal jurisdiction.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals held that Arizona courts had specific jurisdiction over the Connecticut defendants and the Supreme Court granted review to consider that conclusion.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, concluding the appellate opinion correctly applied Arizona’s liberal extraterritorial jurisdiction rule and relevant precedent.
- The Supreme Court clarified that the defendants’ contacts were properly described as "Arizona-client-specific" (contacts with Arizona residents) rather than contacts with the State of Arizona itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arizona courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Connecticut lawyers who provided a tax-opinion letter to Arizona-resident clients | Jurisdiction exists because defendants solicited information from Arizona residents and drafted an opinion letter directed to the Beverages, creating sufficient contacts with Arizona | No jurisdiction: defendants’ work was performed in Connecticut and contacts were not directed to Arizona as a forum | Held: Specific jurisdiction exists; defendants’ Arizona-client-specific contacts suffice under Arizona’s liberal jurisdictional rule |
| Characterization of contacts: "Arizona-specific" vs "Arizona-client-specific" | The appellate court’s description of contacts as Arizona-specific supports jurisdiction | Defendants argued contacts were not with Arizona itself but with out-of-state law practice | Held: Contacts are more precisely "Arizona-client-specific," but that characterization does not affect the jurisdictional conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Planning Group of Scottsdale, L.L.C. v. Lake Mathews Mineral Properties, Ltd., 226 Ariz. 262, 246 P.3d 343 (Ariz. 2011) (articulates Arizona’s approach to specific jurisdiction and relevant contacts analysis)
- Beverage v. Pullman & Comley, 232 Ariz. 414, 306 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013) (Court of Appeals’ decision finding specific jurisdiction over out-of-state lawyers; affirmed with clarification by Arizona Supreme Court)