Dennis Boyer and Richard Smith v. Ernest Smith, Suzanne Cassidy, Esq., and In-Plas, Inc.
2015 Ind. LEXIS 773
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Kentucky attorney Suzanne Cassidy represented Ernest Smith in a Kentucky federal employment-discrimination suit against Dennis Boyer and Richard Smith (and related corporate defendants). The underlying EEOC charge was transferred to Indianapolis before Cassidy filed in Kentucky.
- Cassidy filed the Kentucky complaint, defended through discovery, and participated in litigation activity that touched Indiana (communications with plaintiffs’ Indiana counsel, interaction with the Indianapolis EEOC, and attending a deposition in Indiana scheduled by defendants’ counsel).
- After developments in the Kentucky case (including dismissal and summary judgment as to some defendants), Boyer and Richard sued Ernest and Cassidy in Indiana state court alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, fraud, and related torts arising from the Kentucky suit.
- Cassidy moved (treated as a jurisdictional challenge) arguing the Indiana court lacked personal jurisdiction over her; the trial court found no personal jurisdiction and granted relief on that ground (among others).
- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed as to personal jurisdiction; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and addressed only the jurisdiction issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana courts had specific personal jurisdiction over Cassidy | Boyer/Smith: Cassidy’s contacts (correspondence with Indiana counsel, communications with Indianapolis EEOC, attending deposition in Indiana) were suit‑related contacts sufficient for jurisdiction | Cassidy: Contacts were incidental to representing her client in Kentucky and resulted from others’ actions; she neither directed conduct into Indiana nor purposefully availed herself of Indiana’s forum | Held: No specific jurisdiction — Cassidy’s contacts were not her own purposeful, suit‑related contacts with Indiana and were insufficient under Due Process |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts due‑process test)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles for specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (focus on defendant’s own forum‑directed conduct; plaintiff/third‑party contacts alone insufficient)
- LinkAmerica Corp. v. Cox, 857 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. 2006) (Indiana’s adoption of federal minimum contacts analysis)
- Wallace v. Herron, 778 F.2d 391 (7th Cir. 1985) (attorneys’ attenuated contacts with forum insufficient for jurisdiction)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (general vs. specific jurisdiction principles)
- McGee v. International Life Ins. Co., 355 U.S. 220 (single substantial contact can sometimes support jurisdiction)