Miller v. Provident Advertising & Marketing, Inc., 155 So. 3d 181

Background

Miller sued Cladakis and Entity Defendants for alienation of affection and intentional infliction of emotional distress, asserting Mississippi connections and vicarious liability for the Entity Defendants.
The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Cladakis and the Entity Defendants; on appeal, Entity Defendants are dismissed but Cladakis remains for alienation of affection, and costs/fees under the Litigation Accountability Act are challenged.
Miller alleged conduct by Cladakis in Mississippi (and elsewhere) affected a Tennessee marriage, including sexual activity during stays in Mississippi and interference with Miller’s familial rights.
Hooters entities and Provident entities submitted affidavits denying Mississippi activities or agency; Miller offered limited corroboration that some Mississippi business presence existed but did not prove agency.
The district court remand posture from federal court and dates of remand raised procedural questions about whether the state court could entertain motions after remand.
The appellate court ultimately holds: Entity Defendants lack jurisdiction; Cladakis has prima facie jurisdiction for alienation of affection; extraneous claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress) lack jurisdiction; and fees under the Litigation Accountability Act are reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Entity Defendants are subject to Mississippi personal jurisdiction.	Miller: long-arm statute applies due to torts in part in Mississippi via Cladakis’s conduct.	Entity Defendants had no Mississippi presence or agency; no minimum contacts.	Entity Defendants lack Mississippi personal jurisdiction.
Whether Cladakis is subject to Mississippi personal jurisdiction for alienation of affection.	Cladakis’s Mississippi conduct (and intimate acts) causally contributed to the dissolution of Miller’s Tennessee marriage in Mississippi.	No sufficient contacts; acts outside Mississippi and no forum-directed activity.	Cladakis has prima facie specific jurisdiction for alienation of affection.
Whether Miller’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is within Mississippi jurisdiction.	Mississippi contacts and acts caused distress; claim related to conduct in Mississippi.	Distress claim lacks Mississippi-related acts; no jurisdiction over this claim.	No jurisdiction over the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
Whether post-removal timing affected the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear motions.	Remand order timing divested the state court of jurisdiction for later filings.	Remand timing controls; motions filed after remand were improper or moot.	Issue found without merit; motions were properly considered after remand.
Whether attorney fees under the Litigation Accountability Act were correctly awarded.	Reversal of jurisdiction undermines basis for fee award; Miller’s claims were not frivolous.	Fees justified under frivolous/groundless standard given lack of Mississippi ties.	Fees reversed and remanded; court abused discretion; even if dismissal, fees would be reversed.

Key Cases Cited

Knight v. Woodfield, 50 So.3d 995 (Miss.2011) (two-step long-arm and due-process analysis for jurisdiction)
McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d 753 (5th Cir.2009) (nonresident torts within state establish minimum contacts)
Camp v. Roberts, 462 So.2d 726 (Miss.1985) (Mississippi long-arm statute and alienation of affection permit forum)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S.1985) (traditional fair play and substantial justice test for jurisdiction)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S.1984) (effects test for purposeful availment in tort cases)
Elkhart Engineering Corp. v. Werke, 343 F.2d 867 (5th Cir.1965) (foreign defendant may be subject to forum jurisdiction for torts within state)
Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros Inc., 472 F.3d 266 (5th Cir.2006) (minimum contacts analysis for a defendant with multiple forum contacts)