981 N.W.2d 573
Neb.2022Background
- Plaintiffs Central States Development, LLC and SJ Apartment sued attorney Elizabeth Friedgut and DLA Piper for legal malpractice arising from Friedgut’s representation in HUD/HAP matters relating to a Nebraska property (St. James Manor) that later foreclosed.
- Foley (Central States’ manager) contacted Friedgut at her Chicago/DLA Piper office; plaintiffs allege Friedgut failed to pursue appeals that would have preserved HUD payments, causing bankruptcy and loss of the Nebraska project.
- Friedgut is an Illinois resident, worked from Illinois, never was licensed or appeared in Nebraska, and never traveled to Nebraska for the representation; DLA Piper has no Nebraska office or attorneys licensed in Nebraska.
- Invoices were mailed to Foley in Omaha and he paid them; plaintiffs stress the relationship and the alleged injury occurred in Nebraska.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court held a hearing on affidavits and dismissed for lack of minimum contacts. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska can exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Friedgut/DLA Piper for malpractice arising from HUD work | Representation and billing to Nebraska entities (and injury in Nebraska) show sufficient contacts; defendants should have anticipated being haled into Nebraska court | Friedgut was retained after Foley contacted her in Chicago; all work was federal/HUD-focused and performed from Illinois; no solicitation, office, license, court appearances, or travel to Nebraska | No. Plaintiffs failed to show purposeful availment or substantial connection to Nebraska; specific jurisdiction does not attach |
| Whether the Nebraska location of the harmed property/where injury was felt suffices to establish jurisdiction | Loss of the Nebraska project and resulting damages occurred in Nebraska, so jurisdiction is proper | Effects in Nebraska alone are insufficient; defendant’s own contacts must connect them to Nebraska | No. The location of the injury standing alone does not create the defendant’s meaningful contacts with Nebraska (Walden analysis) |
Key Cases Cited
- Yeransian v. Willkie Farr, 305 Neb. 693, 942 N.W.2d 226 (Neb. 2020) (discusses purposeful availment and long-arm statute interpretation).
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (injury’s location alone does not establish meaningful forum contacts).
- Williams v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 862, 443 N.W.2d 577 (Neb. 1989) (contract-based contacts may support jurisdiction when defendant purposefully directs activities to forum).
- RFD-TV v. WildOpenWest Finance, 288 Neb. 318, 849 N.W.2d 107 (Neb. 2014) (standards for prima facie showing and appellate review of jurisdictional dismissal).
- Hand Cut Steaks Acquisitions v. Lone Star Steakhouse, 298 Neb. 705, 905 N.W.2d 644 (Neb. 2018) (minimum contacts discussion).
- Austad Co. v. Pennie & Edmonds, 823 F.2d 223 (8th Cir. 1987) (out-of-state law firm’s limited phone calls, billing, and brief visits insufficient for jurisdiction).
- Boyer v. Smith, 42 N.E.3d 505 (Ind. 2015) (attorney’s limited federal-agency and out-of-state contacts insufficient for Indiana jurisdiction).