Keaty v. Dodson
457 P.3d 432
Utah Ct. App.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs: Steven Keaty (Nevada resident) and his businesses—Keaty LLC (Nevada LLC with a Utah address) and TM Keaty & Associates Inc. (Utah corporation). Defendant: Blueprint Summer Programs, Inc., a North Carolina corporation; Michael Dodson is a Blueprint executive in North Carolina.
- February 2016: Keaty and Blueprint executives met in North Carolina; Keaty agreed to provide consulting services to Blueprint; thereafter services were provided by phone/video calls (Keaty often participated from Utah or Nevada).
- TM Keaty employees (one based in Salt Lake City) provided accounting and personal-assistance services to Blueprint; TM Keaty invoiced Blueprint from a Utah address and Blueprint paid those invoices to that address.
- In August–October 2016 disputes arose over consulting compensation; in late 2016 a TM Keaty employee left TM Keaty and immediately began working for Blueprint in violation of a no-hire agreement, allegedly harming TM Keaty.
- Plaintiffs sued in Utah on multiple theories (breach of contract, quantum meruit, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and claims related to employee enticement). The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah has general jurisdiction over Blueprint | Blueprint has Utah ties (an executive lives in Utah; accepts applicants from Utah) showing continuous, systematic contacts | Blueprint is incorporated and based in North Carolina; Utah ties are isolated and insufficient | No general jurisdiction — Blueprint is not "at home" in Utah |
| Specific jurisdiction for nonpayment/consulting claims | Blueprint contracted for and received consulting services, and calls occurred while Keaty was in Utah, so claims arise from Blueprint-directed contacts with Utah | The agreement was formed and solicited in North Carolina; Keaty LLC and Keaty (not Blueprint) had the Utah contacts | No specific jurisdiction — defendant did not purposefully direct suit-related conduct to Utah |
| Specific jurisdiction for TM Keaty employee-enticement claims | Blueprint knowingly hired a TM Keaty employee who worked in Utah in breach of agreement, creating Utah-related injury | Blueprint did not take deliberate acts directed at Utah (no alleged recruiting activity into Utah) | No specific jurisdiction — plaintiffs failed to allege deliberate acts by Blueprint directed to Utah |
| Whether district court erred by denying jurisdictional discovery | Plaintiffs asked for discovery to establish jurisdiction | Blueprint opposed; discovery request was not made by proper motion | No error — discovery request was procedurally improper and not required to be granted |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum-contacts test for personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires affiliations that render a corporation "at home" in the forum)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (individual affiliations insufficient to establish corporate submission to forum)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (specific jurisdiction requires defendant’s suit‑related conduct to create substantial connection with the forum)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (plaintiff’s forum connections cannot substitute for defendant’s forum-directed conduct)
- Pohl, Inc. of America v. Webelhuth, 201 P.3d 944 (Utah recognizes that its long-arm statute is coextensive with due process)
- Raser Techs., Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 449 P.3d 150 (Utah: specific jurisdiction requires claim-by-claim analysis of minimum contacts)
- Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206 (plaintiff bears burden to show specific jurisdiction for each claim)