Judi Simek, and Scott Everett v. Christopher Nolan d/b/a Lakeside Farm, LLC, and William P. McCall, III
64 N.E.3d 1237
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Nolan (d/b/a Lakeside Farm, LLC) and McCall alleged Everett (trainer) and Simek converted and defrauded them by taking ownership of the racehorse Cinnamon Beach and collecting purse money after the horse left Indiana.
- Nolan and Everett allegedly made an oral contract: Everett would train horses and pay costs in exchange for 30% ownership; purse money split equally (minus jockey fees). Horses were moved from Indiana to Kentucky and then Florida; Everett took possession in Florida.
- Plaintiffs sued Everett and Simek in Clark Circuit Court (Indiana) for breach of contract, fraud/misrepresentation, and conversion, seeking damages and treble damages under the civil conversion statute.
- Everett and Simek moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(2). The trial court denied the motion and later denied Simek’s motion to reconsider; it suggested depositions but none were taken as to jurisdictional facts.
- Simek submitted unopposed affidavits stating she is a New York resident, never has been to Indiana, never did business or communicated with Indiana persons or entities, had no involvement with Cinnamon Beach until it was in New York, and Everett was never her agent.
- The Court of Appeals examined whether Indiana had specific personal jurisdiction over Simek and, finding no substantial contacts or purposeful availment, reversed and ordered dismissal of claims against her.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana courts have personal jurisdiction over Simek | Nolan: suit arises from conduct related to horse ownership/transfer; jurisdiction appropriate in Indiana (where plaintiffs reside and horse originated) | Simek: no contacts with Indiana; never visited, negotiated, did business, or directed acts toward Indiana; dismissal under T.R. 12(B)(2) required | Held: No personal jurisdiction. Simek proved lack of minimum contacts; claims dismissed as to Simek |
Key Cases Cited
- LinkAmerica Corp. v. Cox, 857 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. 2006) (reduces Indiana jurisdiction analysis to federal due process minimum-contacts test)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (established "minimum contacts" due process standard)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles for specific jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (limitations on jurisdiction based on foreseeability and unilateral activity of others)
- Boyer v. Smith, 42 N.E.3d 505 (Ind. 2015) (emphasizes suit-related conduct and substantial connection to Indiana for specific jurisdiction)