Buckles v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 2:15-cv-01581

Background

Plaintiff Sanford Buckles alleges that Ditech Financial LLC (formerly Green Tree Servicing) recorded multiple telephone calls with him in 2013–2014 without his knowledge, violating Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.600.
Buckles sued Ditech and its parent, Walter Investment Management Corporation, asserting Walter Investment knowingly accepted benefits from Ditech’s allegedly unlawful recordings.
Walter Investment moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
Buckles argued the Court has jurisdiction because (1) Ditech is Walter Investment’s alter ego, so Ditech’s Nevada contacts should be imputed to Walter Investment, and (2) Walter Investment is subject to general jurisdiction in Nevada.
The Court required only a prima facie showing from Buckles and applied Nevada law (which extends jurisdiction to constitutional limits) and Ninth Circuit tests for specific and general jurisdiction.
The Court granted Walter Investment’s motion: Buckles failed to plead facts showing alter-ego control, and Walter Investment is neither incorporated nor principally based in Nevada nor otherwise “essentially at home” there.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walter Investment can be held to have Ditech’s Nevada contacts via alter-ego theory	Ditech is Walter Investment’s alter ego because of ownership and shared executives, so Ditech’s Nevada contacts should be imputed	Parent–subsidiary relationship and overlapping personnel do not alone establish alter-ego/control sufficient to impute contacts	Held: No — plaintiff failed to allege the requisite unity of interest and control to render Ditech the parent’s mere instrumentality; alter-ego not established
Whether Walter Investment is subject to general jurisdiction in Nevada	Walter Investment does business in Nevada (mortgages on Nevada property), so it is subject to general jurisdiction	Walter Investment is incorporated in Maryland and has principal place of business in Florida; mere business activity in Nevada is insufficient for general jurisdiction	Held: No — plaintiff did not meet the exacting standard; Walter Investment is not “essentially at home” in Nevada

Key Cases Cited

Washington Shoe Co. v. A–Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2012) (prima facie burden for jurisdictional facts absent evidentiary hearing)
CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011) (state law applies where no federal statute authorizes jurisdiction; Ninth Circuit specific-jurisdiction test)
Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 857 P.2d 740 (Nev. 1993) (Nevada long‑arm statute extends jurisdiction to constitutional limits)
Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F.2d 1070 (9th Cir. 1986) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (standard for general jurisdiction: continuous and systematic contacts)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render a defendant at home)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (paradigm bases for general jurisdiction are place of incorporation and principal place of business)
Harris v. Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements, Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements to impute subsidiary contacts to parent via alter‑ego)
Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (shared ownership and management personnel alone insufficient for alter‑ego)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (reasonableness inquiry once plaintiff meets first two specific‑jurisdiction prongs)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (articulates three‑part test for specific jurisdiction)