Background - Arizona attorneys K. Layne Morrill and Morrill & Aronson represented Nevada-based Tharaldson parties in Nevada litigation (the Tharaldson Litigation) from 2008–2011. - Scott Financial, its owner Bradley Scott, and Nevada counsel J. Randall Jones (with two Nevada law firms) sought to depose Morrill and a partner; procedural rules then required issuing subpoenas via Arizona Superior Court for Arizona-resident deponents. - The Scott parties filed companion Arizona actions to obtain subpoenas; Morrill moved to quash in Arizona, Jones appeared pro hac vice, and the Arizona court granted the motion but left de novo review to the Nevada Special Discovery Master. - The Nevada Special Master and Nevada courts later addressed the depositions; the Scott parties ultimately did not take the depositions. Scott parties also sued Morrill for defamation in Nevada (dismissed on summary judgment and affirmed) and filed a Nevada bar grievance (dismissed). - Morrill sued Scott, Jones, and their firms in federal court in Arizona for abuse of process and wrongful institution of civil proceedings; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether Arizona courts have specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants for torts allegedly causing harm to Arizona-resident counsel | Morrill: defendants purposely directed tortious conduct at him in Arizona (depositions, service, pro hac vice appearance, defamation service), so jurisdiction lies | Defendants: actions were part of Nevada litigation; contacts with Arizona were incidental or required by procedure and thus not expressly aimed at Arizona | Held: No. Contacts were litigation-related to Nevada and incidental to plaintiffs’ Arizona residence; insufficient purposeful direction | | Whether purposeful availment test applies and was satisfied | Morrill: defendants invoked Arizona procedures to obtain subpoenas and thus availed themselves of Arizona law | Defendants: claims are tort-based (not contract), and contacts arose from Nevada litigation; no substantial connection or ongoing obligations in Arizona | Held: Purposeful availment test inapplicable; even if applied, plaintiffs’ allegations fail to establish substantial Arizona contacts | | Whether Walden/Calder control analysis of ‘expressly aimed’ torts | Morrill: Calder-style reputational effects in Arizona make jurisdiction proper; harm was felt in Arizona | Defendants: Walden controls—plaintiff’s forum connections alone cannot establish jurisdiction; conduct primarily occurred in Nevada | Held: Walden governs; contacts with Arizona arose from plaintiffs’ residence and Nevada litigation, so Walden precludes jurisdiction here | | Whether exercise of jurisdiction would be reasonable (fair play and substantial justice) | Morrill: harms (economic/reputational) were foreseeable in Arizona; defendants voluntarily litigated in Arizona so jurisdiction is reasonable | Defendants: burden of defending in Arizona unreasonable given litigation-centered contacts in Nevada | Held: Court did not reach an extensive reasonableness analysis after finding lack of purposeful contacts; plaintiffs failed to satisfy first two prongs so jurisdiction not established | ### Key Cases Cited Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts test for due process) Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (a plaintiff’s forum connections alone cannot supply defendant’s minimum contacts) Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (‘effects’ test where tortious conduct was expressly aimed at forum via publication) Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (limits on general jurisdiction) Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (three-part specific jurisdiction test in Ninth Circuit) Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (reasonableness and purposeful availment principles)