Cossart v. United Excel Corporation
804 F.3d 13
| 1st Cir. | 2015Background
- Massachusetts resident Cossart sues United Excel and Hornbaker for unpaid commissions under Massachusetts Wage Act.
- Employees worked from Massachusetts; United Excel registered a sales office in Massachusetts and supplied equipment.
- Employment contracts contemplated Massachusetts-based performance; negotiations led to a Massachusetts office and ongoing Massachusetts activity.
- California deal triggered the dispute; purported commission related to work performed from Massachusetts for a California client.
- District Court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; case is removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Court analyzes Massachusetts long-arm statute §3(a) and due process to determine personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporate defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3(a) reaches the defendants. | Cossart shows defendants transacted business in Massachusetts. | No substantial MA transacting of business or for Hornbaker. | Yes; §3(a) reaches the defendants. |
| Whether due process permits specific jurisdiction. | Defendants purposefully availed MA and caused MA-based breach. | Too attenuated connection to MA; no foreseeable presence. | Yes; specific jurisdiction satisfied. |
| Whether the claim arises from defendants' MA activities. | Breach ties to MA-based contract performance. | Dispute concerns California deal. | Arises from MA-based contract performance and office. |
| Whether the defendant officers can be personally subjected to MA jurisdiction. | Hornbaker as primary participant is subject to MA jurisdiction. | Officers not individually conducting MA activities. | Yes; corporate officer subject to long-arm jurisdiction. |
| Whether the use of MA as forum is fair and reasonable. | MA has a strong state interest and plaintiff convenience. | Forum burden on nonresident defendants. | Procedural fairness satisfied; MA is proper forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir. 1995) (relatedness and purposeful availment framework for specific jurisdiction)
- C.W. Downer & Co. v. Bioriginal Food & Sci. Corp., 771 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2014) (three-prong test for specific jurisdiction; gestalt factors)
- Tatro v. Manor Care, Inc., 625 N.E.2d 549 (Mass. 1994) (but-for causation standard for 'transacting business' under §3(a))
- Haddad v. Taylor, 588 N.E.2d 1375 (Mass. App. Ct. 1992) (agency-like MA transacting of business through contract negotiations)
- United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers of Am. v. 163 Pleasant St. Corp., 960 F.2d 1080 (1st Cir. 1992) (definition of participating in MA's economic life for long-arm)