Clearone, Inc. v. Revolabs, Inc.
369 P.3d 1269
Utah2016Background
- ClearOne, a Utah corporation, sued Revolabs, a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in Massachusetts, alleging tortious interference, predatory hiring, and aiding and abet breach of fiduciary duty after Revolabs recruited ClearOne employee Timothy Mackie.
- Mackie lived and worked in Texas during the relevant time; his communications with Revolabs personnel occurred while he was in Texas and Revolabs employees were located outside Utah. No part of the hiring or communications occurred in Utah.
- ClearOne alleged the employment agreement and fiduciary duties were governed by Utah law and performed in part in Utah; ClearOne is headquartered in Utah.
- Revolabs moved to dismiss under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction; ClearOne sought jurisdictional discovery to pursue general jurisdiction; trial court denied discovery and granted dismissal.
- The Utah Supreme Court reviewed specific-jurisdiction de novo and denial of discovery for abuse of discretion, applying recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents (Walden, Daimler) to evaluate both specific and general jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah has specific personal jurisdiction over Revolabs for torts arising from recruiting Mackie | Revolabs intentionally targeted a ClearOne employee and knew ClearOne was a Utah corporation; under the Calder/effects test, injury to a Utah plaintiff suffices to establish specific jurisdiction | Revolabs had no contacts with Utah apart from the fact that ClearOne is based there; all relevant conduct occurred outside Utah and did not create contacts with the forum | No. Court held Walden narrows Calder; plaintiff cannot be the only link — Revolabs lacked minimum contacts with Utah |
| Whether ClearOne was entitled to jurisdictional discovery to pursue general (all-purpose) jurisdiction over Revolabs | Discovery could reveal Revolabs does substantial, continuous business in Utah (revenue, contracts, prior dealings) supporting general jurisdiction | Revolabs has no offices, employees, property, or directed advertising in Utah per affidavit; Daimler requires a defendant be "at home" in the forum (incorporation or principal place of business except in exceptional cases) | No. Court held discovery denial was not an abuse of discretion because allegations were insufficient under Daimler to show Revolabs was "at home" in Utah |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (established the "effects" approach to intentional-tort personal jurisdiction where defendant's conduct connected to the forum itself)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for due-process personal jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (clarified that plaintiff's forum contacts cannot be attributed to defendant; defendant must create contacts with the forum itself)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general jurisdiction proper only where defendant is "at home," typically place of incorporation or principal place of business)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction requires affiliations so continuous and systematic as to render defendant at home)
- Pohl, Inc. of Am. v. Webelhuth, 201 P.3d 944 (Utah 2008) (Utah case adopting a broad Calder/effects reading later limited by Walden)