Kurtz v. United States
779 F. Supp. 2d 50
D.D.C.2011Background
- Pro se plaintiff James D. Lammers Kurtz filed a complaint naming at least twenty-seven defendants related to property in Wisconsin and harms occurring there and in Seventh Circuit courts.
- Most defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
- Plaintiff fails to plead a basis for personal jurisdiction over any moving defendant under DC long-arm statute and due process.
- Court applies DC law (long-arm statute and due process) to determine jurisdiction; no defendant is domiciled or has principal place of business in DC.
- Plaintiff’s venue challenges are not framed as jurisdictional facts and do not establish personal jurisdiction; harms and property are in Wisconsin, not DC.
- Court grants all motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denies reconsideration except as to vacating certain prior orders regarding other defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over moving defendants. | Kurtz asserts contacts with DC through defendants' filings and alleged conspiracies. | Defendants lack DC domicile/place of business and no proper DC contacts. | No personal jurisdiction over moving defendants. |
| Whether DC long-arm statute supports jurisdiction over moving defendants. | Plaintiff contends contacts in DC via actions/omissions. | No acts or omissions in DC by defendants; no substantial DC connection. | Long-arm statute not satisfied. |
| Whether DC due process requires jurisdiction over moving defendants. | Plaintiff claims general or purposeful conduct toward DC. | No minimum contacts with DC; not foreseeable to be sued in DC. | Due process not satisfied. |
| Whether the complaint properly asserts venue/jurisdiction in DC or should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Venue mischaracterized as jurisdiction due to access issues. | Venue is not a substitute for jurisdiction; DC cannot assert jurisdiction. | Complaint dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; reconsideration granted and related orders vacated as to certain defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE New Media Servs., Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C.Cir. 2000) (long-arm analysis and due process framework for jurisdiction)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (basis for due process and minimum contacts)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (minimum contacts and fair play in forum state)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (purposeful availment and foreseeability in jurisdiction)