2022 Ohio 3113
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Laurence filed a civil stalking protection order (CSPO) petition in Ohio against his son Daniel on Nov. 20, 2019; an ex parte order issued and Daniel is a nonresident of Ohio.
- Daniel moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; an evidentiary hearing was held where Laurence testified and submitted email exhibits.
- The magistrate found no personal jurisdiction and recommended dismissal; the trial court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the petition.
- Laurence appealed, raising two assignments of error: (1) the court lacked personal jurisdiction; (2) Daniel waived the personal-jurisdiction defense.
- The alleged stalking/mens rea conduct consisted of threatening and harassing emails Daniel sent to Laurence’s Ohio-based attorneys; Laurence argued these communications caused him mental distress and triggered Ohio’s long-arm statute.
- The Eleventh District reversed the dismissal, holding the long-arm statute and due-process standards supported the exercise of specific jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings; it upheld the court’s ruling that Daniel had not waived the jurisdictional defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of personal-jurisdiction defense | Daniel waived the defense by filing motions to continue and to appear by video before raising jurisdiction | Motions to continue/for video are not responsive pleadings nor Civ.R.12(B) motions and do not waive the defense | No waiver: non-merits motions did not forfeit Civ.R.12(B)(2) defense |
| Personal jurisdiction under Ohio long-arm & due process | Emails to plaintiff’s Ohio attorneys caused mental distress in Ohio and satisfy R.C. 2307.382(A)(6)/Civ.R.4.3(A)(9); specific jurisdiction is proper | Daniel is nonresident and trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over him | Reversed: long-arm statute applies to the out-of-state email threats and specific jurisdiction (minimum contacts, reasonableness) is satisfied; case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 464 N.E.2d 538 (Ohio 1984) (treatment of personal-jurisdiction defense, Civ.R.12(G)/(H) waiver rules)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts standard for due process)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1958) (purposeful availment principle)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81, 930 N.E.2d 784 (Ohio 2010) (two-step Ohio personal-jurisdiction analysis; de novo review)
- Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
- Anilas, Inc. v. Kern, 31 Ohio St.3d 163, 509 N.E.2d 1267 (Ohio 1987) (due-process/fair-play analysis for nonresident defendants)