David Schneider v. Michael Hardesty
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3569
6th Cir.2012Background
- Schneider sues Nelson in Ohio on fraud and related claims arising from Nelson’s letters soliciting investor information.
- Nelson drafted two “To Whom It May Concern” letters while hired by Hardesty to recover London Reinsurance assets; He did not personally mail them.
- Schneider contends the letters contained false statements and induced reliance, stereographically linking Nelson to the scheme.
- District court granted Nelson’s 12(b)(2) motion, applying a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and finding no jurisdiction.
- Schneider conducted limited discovery; Nelson admitted drafting and sharing some investor data with Hardesty, and knowing Hardesty might distribute the letters.
- Court reverses and remands, concluding Ohio long-arm § 2307.382(A)(6) and due process permit jurisdiction under the preponderance standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof for jurisdiction | Schneider contends prima facie standard applies absent evidentiary hearing. | Nelson argues preponderance standard governs since discovery occurred and no dispute remains. | Preponderance standard applies; district court erred in relying solely on written submissions. |
| Ohio long-arm § 2307.382(A)(6) sufficiency | Nelson’s letters caused anticipated injury to Ohio residents; jurisdiction proper. | Disputed knowledge of recipients undermines contact basis. | Sufficient facts show reasonably expected injury in Ohio; § 2307.382(A)(6) satisfied. |
| Due process: purposeful availment and connections | Nelson’s drafting and distribution of letters constitutes purposeful availment and a causal link to Schneider’s claims. | Letters drafted by Nelson but mailed by Hardesty; limited direct contact and intent questioned. | Nelson purposefully availed himself via drafting and targeted letters; actions tied to Ohio allegations satisfy due process. |
| Arising from contacts and reasonableness | Claims arise from Nelson’s letters; Ohio forum is reasonable given plaintiff’s residence and injury. | Utah defendant facing burden; need to show substantial connection. | Cause of action arises from the letters; forum state’s interest and equities render jurisdiction reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 F.2d 286 (1980) (minimum contacts and reasonableness for due process)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and forum-state benefits)
- Serras v. First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 875 F.2d 1212 (1989) (prima facie vs. preponderance standard depending on hearing)
- Dean v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 134 F.3d 1269 (1998) (exception to standard when no evidentiary hearing)
- International Technologies Consultants, Inc. v. Euroglas S.A., 107 F.3d 386 (1997) (discovery scope and standard for jurisdictional proof)
- Air Prods. & Controls, Inc. v. Safetech Int’l, Inc., 503 F.3d 544 (2007) (reasonableness factors in due-process analysis)