Buckley v. Bushell
4:25-cv-00012
D. Ariz.May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Valerie Buckley and Anthony Pellegrino, residents of Arizona, brought suit against Pam and Don Bushell, residents of Washington, alleging abuse of process and wrongful institution of civil proceedings related to disputes over care and guardianship of their mother, Dorothy Pellegrino ("Dot").
- Dot, age 95, lives in assisted living in Eagar, Arizona, and Arizona courts were the forum for some of the disputed guardianship actions.
- Pam, previously Dot's fiduciary, lost that role when Dot named Valerie and Tony as her agents. Pam and her husband initiated several legal actions in both Arizona and Washington aiming to regain guardianship and visitation rights, and to restrict the actions of Valerie and Tony.
- Plaintiffs allege these litigations were initiated for improper purposes, causing them financial loss and emotional strain.
- The Bushells moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing insufficient purposeful contacts with Arizona.
- The federal district court, considering all filings and affidavits, found Arizona-specific acts forming the basis of the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal Jurisdiction over Nonresident Defs | Defendants purposefully directed tortious conduct (legal filings) at AZ residents in AZ | Actions were about Dot, not AZ; conduct aimed at Dot, not forum; contacts are fortuitous | Court has specific personal jurisdiction: Defendants purposefully directed acts at AZ |
| Sufficiency of "Intentional Acts" for Jurisdiction | Abuse of process and wrongful use of civil proceedings are intentional torts sufficient for jurisdiction | Only actual torts establish jurisdiction; no intentional tort pleaded | Intentional acts (filing actions) alleged meet standard; tort status is not required |
| Relevance of Precedent (Morrill v. Scott) | Case is distinguishable: out-of-state acts here were directed at AZ and not ancillary to foreign litigation | Morrill means similar acts don't confer jurisdiction on forum state | Morrill distinguishable: actions were central, not ancillary; impacts felt in AZ |
| Minimum Contacts—Reasonableness | Not specifically addressed (burden shifts to defendants) | Defendants made no reasonableness argument if first two prongs met | With no compelling reason offered by defendants, jurisdiction is reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2017) (distinguishing purposeful availment where acts are ancillary to out-of-state litigation)
- Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (foreign litigation that seeks to constrain acts in the forum state is "expressly aimed" at the forum)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (minimum contacts required for fair play and substantial justice in personal jurisdiction)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (three-prong test for specific personal jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (jurisdiction must be based on defendant’s own connection with the forum, not merely contacts with forum residents)