2014 Ohio 3246
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Fern Exposition Services, LLC, an Ohio-headquartered exposition services company, sued former Charlotte-based general manager Donald Lenhof (a North Carolina resident) for tortious interference, trade-secret misappropriation, and breach of a nonsolicitation clause after he left Fern and began working for competitor Viper, which later won a key client (the Greater Charlotte Auto Dealers).
- Lenhof had worked for Fern intermittently since 1980, moved to North Carolina in 2000, and served as Charlotte general manager from 2003–2013; he communicated regularly with Fern executives in Cincinnati and accessed company client data on servers located in Ohio via a company laptop.
- Lenhof visited the Cincinnati-area for company managers’ meetings a few times per year (sometimes crossing into Ohio), attended one meeting at Fern’s Cincinnati headquarters, and made a few personal trips into Ohio; he did not reside in Ohio after 1993.
- Fern sued in Ohio; Lenhof moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(2). The trial court granted the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Fern appealed.
- The court reviewed personal-jurisdiction de novo, applied the prima-facie standard (no evidentiary hearing), and analyzed both R.C. 2307.382(A)(6) (Ohio’s long-arm statute) and federal due-process limits (general vs. specific jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio’s long-arm statute (R.C. 2307.382(A)(6)) covers Fern’s claims | Lenhof caused tortious injury to an Ohio company by acts (interference, misappropriation) outside Ohio, and should have expected injury to occur in Ohio | Lenhof argued his out-of-state acts didn’t reasonably subject him to Ohio’s long arm | Held: Long-arm statute applies — Fern’s allegations (use of client data, helping cancel contract) fall within (A)(6) when construed in plaintiff’s favor |
| Whether Ohio has general jurisdiction over Lenhof | Fern suggested his repeated contacts (meetings, communications, server access) were pervasive | Lenhof argued contacts were insufficiently continuous/systematic to be "at home" in Ohio | Held: No general jurisdiction — contacts did not render Lenhof essentially at home in Ohio |
| Whether Ohio has specific jurisdiction over Lenhof (due process) | Lenhof purposefully availed himself of Ohio by entering employment with an Ohio company, communicating with Ohio executives, and accessing Ohio servers; the claims arise from those contacts | Lenhof argued limited physical presence and mostly out-of-state acts make Ohio jurisdiction unfair | Held: Specific jurisdiction satisfied — purposeful availment, claims arise from Ohio-related contacts, and exercising jurisdiction is reasonable |
| Standard of proof for jurisdiction where no evidentiary hearing held | Fern: prima-facie showing suffices given no evidentiary hearing | Lenhof: argued a preponderance standard should apply because discovery occurred and facts undisputed | Held: Prima-facie standard applies absent an evidentiary hearing; Fern met that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (due-process limits require defendant’s own contacts with forum state)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (minimum contacts and fair play principles)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (established minimum-contacts test)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and fair warning in specific-jurisdiction analysis)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (clarified standard for general jurisdiction; "essentially at home")
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (limits on general jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants)
- Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Indus., 401 F.2d 374 (6th Cir. 1968) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
- Kauffman Racing Equip. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2010) (Ohio standard for general jurisdiction and discussion of contacts)