Dunn v. Cone, 3:19-cv-00920

Plaintiff Melinda Dunn sued as next friend of her minor child J.D., alleging William Cone sexually assaulted J.D. (multiple incidents) and Mary Jo Cone was negligent for failing to prevent or report the abuse.
William and Mary Jo Cone are Missouri residents; J.D. lived primarily with his mother in Tennessee during a custody dispute (2005–2009) and spent summers/visits with William in Missouri.
One alleged rape occurred at the Hotel Preston in Nashville; FBI and Tennessee investigations occurred and state charges were later resolved by a conditional plea.
Dunn alleges claims against William (assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress) and negligence against Mary Jo for omission.
Procedural posture: William filed a partial motion to dismiss; Mary Jo moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and separately moved to strike portions of plaintiff affidavits.
Ruling: Court denied William’s motion (exercised specific jurisdiction over William) and granted Mary Jo’s motion for lack of personal jurisdiction; Mary Jo’s motion to strike was denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
General jurisdiction over defendants	Custody litigation and repeated contacts create continuous/systematic contacts	Defendants domiciled in Missouri; not "at home" in Tennessee	No general jurisdiction over either defendant
Specific jurisdiction over William for out-of-state abuse	William routinely traveled to Tennessee to pick up J.D.; those visits enabled abuse in Missouri, creating a substantial nexus	William conceded jurisdiction for the Tennessee hotel assault but argued other claims (Missouri incidents) lacked nexus to Tennessee	Court found purposeful availment, causal nexus, and reasonableness; specific jurisdiction exists over William for all claims
Specific jurisdiction over Mary Jo for negligence	Mary Jo accompanied William to pick up J.D. and attended Tennessee hearings; these visits suffice for jurisdiction	Mary Jo had only a few visits over 15 years; her Tennessee contacts were not a proximate cause of alleged Missouri negligence	No specific jurisdiction over Mary Jo; claims dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
Motion to strike portions of plaintiff affidavits	Affidavits contain hearsay and should be stricken	Motion unnecessary if affidavits are admissible for jurisdictional prima facie showing	Motion to strike denied as moot because Mary Jo was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction limited to where defendant is essentially at home)
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts due process standard)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (plaintiff cannot be the only link between defendant and forum)
Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374 (Sixth Circuit test for specific jurisdiction)
Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (one visitation agreement alone does not confer jurisdiction)
Beydoun v. Wataniya Restaurants Holding, Q.S.C., 768 F.3d 499 (proximate-cause requirement between contacts and claim)
Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Still N The Water Publ’g, 327 F.3d 472 (purposeful availment requires deliberate contacts)
Schneider v. Hardesty, 669 F.3d 693 (reasonableness factors for jurisdiction)
Calphalon Corp. v. Rowlette, 228 F.3d 718 (operative facts must arise from defendant’s forum contacts)
Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454 (plaintiff must present facts by affidavit to establish prima facie jurisdiction)
Dean v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 134 F.3d 1269 (procedures for ruling on Rule 12(b)(2) motions)