Day v. Cornér Bank (Overseas) Ltd.
789 F. Supp. 2d 150
D.D.C.2011Background
- Day, a Nevada resident, sues Cornèr Bank (Overseas) Ltd. and related entities—a Bahamian bank, its Swiss parent, the Bahamian manager, and a Bahamian law firm—alleging a $14 million Bahamas account linked to her mother and a Kansas resident.
- Plaintiff alleges the CB account was opened in the 1970s by her mother and that she later obtained information about it; Day retained counsel and a Bahamian firm to press inquiries.
- Plaintiff travels to the Bahamas seeking information; allegations include a Bahamian manager allegedly blocking access and a smear campaign against Day.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for forum non conveniens; the court previously ruled on service and amendments but now dismisses for lack of DC connections.
- Court applies DC long-arm statute and due process analysis to determine general and specific jurisdiction, and concludes none of the defendants have the required forum contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has general jurisdiction over the defendants | Day contends defendants engage in US activities through banks and relationships. | Defendants lack continuous and systematic contacts with DC. | No general jurisdiction over any defendant. |
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction under DC long-arm statute | DC contacts or forum-related acts by defendants support jurisdiction. | Defendants did not transact business in DC nor cause DC-injuries tied to forum activities; no plus factors. | No specific jurisdiction under §13-423 or due process. |
| Whether §1391(d) (venue) can establish jurisdiction | §1391(d) allows suing aliens in any district; venue should apply. | Venue statute is separate from personal jurisdiction and does not grant jurisdiction. | §1391(d) is a venue provision, not jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- FC Inv. Grp. v. IMX Mkts., Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (requires specific facts; general assertions insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts)
- GTE New Media Servs., Inc. v. Bellsouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (requires substantial connection to forum for long-arm jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (due process fair warning; purposeful direction to forum)