Conn v. Zakharov, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 607

Conn sues Zakharov in the Northern District of Ohio for breach of contract; contract allegedly to be performed in Russia with Conn claiming a 15% share in a Russian venture.
Conn moved to Russia to perform; Conn selected Ohio as forum due to Zakharov's Ohio property and belief a Russian court would be unfavorable.
District court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Conn appeals challenging Ohio long-arm and due process analyses.
Zakharov is a Russian citizen who owns Ohio real estate (Pepper Pike), Ohio-registered vehicles, an Ohio bank account, and spends time in Ohio yearly.
Zakharov travels to Ohio for extended periods (e.g., 40 days in 2007, total 17 days in 2008–2009) and maintains Ohio property and interests.
Ohio law distinguishes long-arm jurisdiction from due process; Ohio does not recognize general jurisdiction over non-residents; jurisdiction hinges on specific bases and due process fairness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ohio long-arm statute provides jurisdiction	Conn asserts some basis under Ohio’s long-arm statute applies.	Zakharov contends no enumerated basis applies given lack of Ohio-related actions.	No Ohio long-arm basis applies for Zakharov.
Whether due process permits general or specific jurisdiction	Conn argues general jurisdiction via pervasive Ohio contacts.	Zakharov contends contacts are not continuous/systematic; no general jurisdiction; no specific basis tied to Ohio.	No jurisdiction under due process; general jurisdiction not established; specific jurisdiction not shown.
Whether service or domicile arguments create jurisdiction	Conn contends service in Ohio or Zakharov’s Ohio residence suffices.	Zakharov was not personally served in Ohio; owning property alone does not constitute residence for jurisdiction.	Service was not proper; residence theory rejected; no jurisdiction under these theories.
Whether Ohio recognizes general jurisdiction over non-residents	Conn asserts general jurisdiction exists under some interpretations.	Ohio law requires long-arm basis; general jurisdiction not recognized for non-residents.	Ohio does not recognize general jurisdiction over Zakharov; only long-arm analysis applies and fails here.

Int’l Techs. Consultants v. Euroglas S.A., 107 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 1997) (due-process-informed jurisdiction analysis in diversity cases)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (minimum contacts; predictability in territorial reach)
Kroger Co. v. Malease Foods Corp., 437 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2006) (prima facie case required on Rule 12(b)(2) jurisdiction)
CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) (pleadings viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff for jurisdiction)
Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232 (1994) (Ohio long-arm statute limited; requires connection to enumerated bases)
Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (2010) (Ohio long-arm statute interplay with due process for jurisdiction)
Brunner v. Hampson, 441 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2006) (two-part inquiry: long-arm statute and due process)
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., 495 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1990) (personal service; presence within forum state)
Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1980) (property ownership as a contact factor, insufficient alone)
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1977) (notion of contacts tied to subject matter of litigation)
Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (U.S. 1952) (limits of long-arm reach; due process considerations)
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Tryg Intl. Ins., 91 F.3d 790 (6th Cir. 1996) (long-arm statute not coterminous with due process)