In re Reddam, 180 A.3d 683

Respondents: CashCall (Calif. corp.), WS Funding (Delaware LLC, Calif. principal place), and John Paul Reddam (president/CEO and 100% owner of CashCall; president of WS Funding). None licensed under NH small-loan statute RSA ch. 399-A.
CashCall and WS Funding contracted with Western Sky Financial (tribally affiliated lender) via a 2010 Service Agreement and an Assignment Agreement; Reddam personally signed those agreements for the companies.
CashCall provided operational support, reimbursed expenses, hosted websites, and received borrower payments; WS Funding was identified as purchaser of loans on assignment notices. The NH Banking Department concluded CashCall/WS Funding were the true lenders and issued a cease-and-desist in June 2013 for unlicensed small-loan activity affecting 787 NH consumers.
Procedural posture: Department denied respondents’ motions to dismiss; Reddam sought certiorari review in NH Supreme Court challenging denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Department argued exhaustion, waiver, and that statutory control-person liability sufficed; Department alternatively defended due-process compliance.
Court reviewed de novo under the prima facie standard (no evidentiary hearing) and treated Department’s proffers as true for jurisdictional analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Reddam)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
1. Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Petition premature; must wait for final agency order	Department: interlocutory review improper	Denied — court allowed immediate review because forcing defense on merits would be unfair if jurisdiction is lacking
2. Waiver by active litigation	Timely raised lack of jurisdiction	Department: litigated for months and thus waived defense	Not reached on merits; court found no need to decide because due-process analysis sufficed
3. Whether control-person statutory liability alone supplies minimum contacts	Statutory liability ≠ constitutional contacts; control status alone insufficient	Statute implies jurisdiction or at least is relevant	Rejected: control-person status alone is insufficient; but participation in the unlawful scheme can supply contacts
4. Specific personal jurisdiction (relatedness, purposeful availment, fairness)	No personal New Hampshire contacts; no purposeful availment; undue burden to litigate in NH	Reddam controlled and executed agreements that created a scheme to evade state laws and target consumers (including NH); foreseeably subject to suit	Held: Department made prima facie showing of relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness; due process satisfied — jurisdiction proper

Sweeney v. N.H. Bank Comm'r, 167 N.H. 27, 104 A.3d 171 (NH) (prima facie standard and minimum-contacts framework for administrative proceedings)
Metcalf v. Lawson, 148 N.H. 35, 802 A.2d 1221 (NH) (New Hampshire long-arm and due-process analysis)
Mosier v. Kinley, 142 N.H. 415, 702 A.2d 803 (NH) (unfair to force defendant to litigate merits when personal jurisdiction is contested)
In re Baan Co. Sec. Litig., 245 F. Supp. 2d 117 (D.D.C.) (statutory control-person liability does not by itself supply personal jurisdiction; personal participation can)
Phillips v. Prairie Eye Ctr., 530 F.3d 22 (1st Cir.) (purposeful availment requires deliberate contacts not based on unilateral acts of others)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S.) (employee status does not automatically shield a person from jurisdiction)
N. Atlantic Ref. Ltd. v. State, 160 N.H. 275, 999 A.2d 396 (NH) (relatedness, purposeful availment, and gestalt fairness factors)
Alacron v. Swanson, 145 N.H. 625, 765 A.2d 1043 (NH) (specific-jurisdiction depends on relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation)
Bulldog Investors v. Sec'y of Com., 457 Mass. 210, 929 N.E.2d 293 (Mass.) (personal jurisdiction over individuals shown where each admitted providing information leading to violations)