Indah v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission, 661 F.3d 914

Plaintiffs claim ownership interests in Indonesian mines and sue Newmont and others in 2009 for securities-enforcement and related theories.
The district court dismissed all claims against all defendants under Rule 12(b) and later sanctioned plaintiffs and their counsel under Rule 11.
The district court ordered over $107,000 in attorney fees and costs and issued a broad injunction prohibiting plaintiffs from filing future lawsuits related to the subject matter in any court.
Plaintiffs and Reifman appealed the Rule 11 sanction decision and the underlying dismissals, challenging both merits and sanctions orders.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissals but reversed and remanded the Rule 11 sanctions portion for reconsideration consistent with its opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Newmont lacked personal jurisdiction over Newmont	Plaintiffs argue Michigan contacts or § 27 service suffice.	Newmont contends no general or specific jurisdiction; activities are unrelated or tenuous.	Affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Whether the district court properly denied reconsideration following dismissal	Reconsideration would cure jurisdictional defects via proposed Third Amended Complaint.	No basis to reconsider; proposed amendment did not establish jurisdiction.	Affirmed denial of reconsideration.
Whether Rule 11 sanctions were properly imposed against plaintiffs and counsel	Sanctions based on conduct broader than that identified in the sanction motion; notice insufficient.	Sanctions rooted in lack of inquiry and improper filing; appropriate under Rule 11.	Reversed the Rule 11 violation finding and vacated sanctions; remanded for new Rule 11 consideration.
Whether the district court correctly dismissed the remaining defendants	Appeals challenge the breadth of precedential support for dismissal.	District court properly dismissed on jurisdiction and other grounds.	Affirmed dismissal of all claims against remaining defendants.

Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction)
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts and fair play standard)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (foreseeability of being haled into court)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (distinction between general and specific jurisdiction)
Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 (U.S. 1975) (private rights under §10(b) require purchaser/seller status)
Thomson v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide, 545 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2008) (alter-ego theory and jurisdiction limits)
Shel don v. Khanal, 605 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Kan. 2008) (sale of stock to forum residents not general jurisdiction)
Action Mfg. Co. v. Simon Wrecking Co., 375 F. Supp. 2d 411 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (stock sales to national public and lack of forum contacts)
Thornton v. General Motors Corp., 136 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 1998) (sua sponte Rule 11 sanctions require precise notice of violation)
Nuwesra v. Merrill Lynch, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 174 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 1999) (particularized notice for Rule 11 sanctions)
Anjelino v. New York Times Co., 200 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. 2000) (notice and opportunity to respond before sanctions)