Elko Broadband Ltd. v. Haidermota BNR, Lawyers and Counsel with Offices in Islamadad, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 3:20-cv-00293

Elko Broadband (Nevada corp.) alleges legal malpractice against Haidermota BNR (Pakistani law firm) and accounting malpractice against A.F. Ferguson & Co. (Pakistani accounting firm) arising from a failed purchase of Wateen Telecom Limited (a Pakistani company).
Engagements involved advice and document review under Pakistani law; Elko’s executives traveled to Pakistan and met with both firms; Haidermota BNR’s engagement letter included a forum-selection clause naming Karachi courts as exclusive forum.
Elko sued in Nevada state court; Ferguson removed to federal court based on diversity; both defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Haidermota also invoked the forum-selection clause.
Parties submitted conflicting declarations about who initiated contact (emails/phone calls to Nevada vs. introductions through Pakistan-based intermediaries).
The Court found neither general nor specific jurisdiction over either defendant because their contacts were not continuous/systematic and did not constitute purposeful availment of Nevada law/protections.
The Court also enforced Haidermota BNR’s forum-selection clause and dismissed the case (transfer to Pakistan impracticable), and granted dismissal of Ferguson for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
General jurisdiction over defendants	Defendants had contacts with Nevada through communications and dealings with a Nevada plaintiff	Defendants have no office, employees, or continuous business in Nevada; activities were in Pakistan	No general jurisdiction; contacts not continuous/systematic to approximate physical presence
Specific jurisdiction — Haidermota BNR (purposeful availment)	Haidermota solicited and communicated with Elko in Nevada (emails/phone) and sent engagement letter to Nevada	Representation concerned Pakistani law, services performed in Pakistan, no targeted Nevada activity or benefit	No specific jurisdiction; plaintiff–defendant relationship alone insufficient; contacts too attenuated
Specific jurisdiction — Ferguson (purposeful availment)	Ferguson contacted Elko in Nevada and reviewed WTL materials relied on by Elko	Services and review occurred in Pakistan; contacts with Nevada were limited communications	No specific jurisdiction; emails/phone insufficient where services and harms arose in Pakistan
Enforceability of forum-selection clause (Haidermota BNR)	Elko says clause is unduly burdensome and was allegedly crossed out	Clause designates Karachi courts; parties knowingly agreed to Pakistani forum; Elko previously traveled to Pakistan	Clause enforced; federal court dismissed under forum non conveniens principles in favor of Karachi forum

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts due process test)
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (contacts must be the defendant’s own; relationship with plaintiff alone insufficient)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (standard for general jurisdiction)
Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (framework for specific jurisdiction analysis)
Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357 (9th Cir. 1990) (out-of-state legal representation and communications often insufficient for purposeful availment)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff’s burden and prima facie showing when written submissions govern jurisdictional dispute)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (purposeful availment requires affirmative conduct invoking forum’s laws/protections)
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum-selection clauses deserve substantial deference)
Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (district court may dismiss when a foreign forum is clearly more appropriate)
M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) (parties generally bound by valid forum-selection clauses)