749 F. Supp. 2d 648
E.D. Mich.2010Background
- Plaintiffs allege legal malpractice and breach of contract against Waters & Kraus, LLP arising from its role in a Texas wrongful-death/asbestos action involving the Pauline Ridenour estate.
- Wallace Ridenour, as personal representative of Pauline’s estate, initially contracted with Worthington (Texas) for the action; Waters later allegedly joined the matter.
- Michigan probate proceedings issued Letters of Authority appointing Wallace as personal representative; subsequent distributions of asbestos settlement proceeds were conducted in Texas and allegedly steered to Wallace alone.
- Plaintiffs allege Waters’ involvement and conduct created a Michigan connection through prior representations and distribution actions, and that Waters disbursed funds in Michigan.
- Waters moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; the court granted the motion in part, dismissing Waters for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Court denied offering any ruling on Waters’ merits defense beyond jurisdictional dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Waters | Waters purposefully availed Michigan via retainer and prior representation | Waters had minimal, non-sufficient ties to Michigan | Lacks general and specific jurisdiction; jurisdiction is not proper |
| Whether the complaint states claims against Waters for malpractice or breach of contract | Waters’ actions caused alleged harm in Michigan and Texas | Waters contends no contractual or malpractice basis with plaintiffs beyond Wallace | Court avoided merits ruling; dismissed only on jurisdictional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984) (general jurisdiction limits under due process and long-arm analysis)
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (1952) (continuous and systematic contacts may justify general jurisdiction)
- Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir. 1995) (attorney-client relationship alone not enough for purposeful availment)
- Austad Co. v. Pennie & Edmonds, 823 F.2d 223 (8th Cir. 1987) (limited contacts and referral structure insufficient for purposeful availment)
- Kerry Steel, Inc. v. Paragon Indus., Inc., 106 F.3d 147 (6th Cir. 1997) (contract with forum resident plus mere communications not sufficient for availment)