Paired Pay Inc v. Clearobject Inc, 2:22-cv-01013

Plaintiff Paired Pay, Inc. (Wyoming corp., principal place of business in SC) alleges ClearObject, Inc. (Delaware corp., principal place of business in Indiana) breached a July 2021 Project Change Request to an earlier Statement of Work.
Business relationship began after ClearObject employee Ron Felice (resident of Summerville, SC) solicited Black Ink Technologies (Paired Pay’s parent) in-person in South Carolina and executed an NDA; Felice made multiple in-person contacts in SC before his 2020 departure from ClearObject.
ClearObject sent proposals and personnel to develop work for Black Ink product/platform companies (including Paired/Paired Pay); Paired Pay was formed in Feb 2021 to facilitate the engagement.
Procedural posture: Plaintiff filed in Charleston County (Jan 31, 2022); ClearObject removed and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer venue; ClearObject had filed a related suit in Indiana four days earlier.
The court held it has specific personal jurisdiction over ClearObject based on purposeful availment (agent solicitation; in-person contacts; awareness of Black Ink–Paired relationship) and found jurisdiction reasonable.
The court denied the motion to dismiss/transfer and declined to decide the first-to-file rule until the Indiana court rules on related jurisdictional/venue motions; parties were ordered to report that decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2)	Jurisdiction exists because ClearObject, through Felice and in-person visits/communications, purposefully availed itself of SC and the claim arises from those contacts	No specific jurisdiction: ClearObject is domiciled outside SC and contacts were insufficient	Held: Court finds prima facie specific jurisdiction; purposeful availment and reasonableness satisfied; motion to dismiss denied
Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (venue)	N/A (Plaintiff opposed transfer)	Argued alternative relief: dismiss or transfer to Indiana	Held: Court declined to consider §1391 transfer because, after removal, defendant conceded it could not obtain §1391 dismissal/transfer; court limited consideration to personal jurisdiction
First-to-file rule (parallel Indiana action)	N/A	Argued the Indiana action (filed earlier) should take priority and this case be dismissed/transferred/stayed	Held: Court deferred ruling on first-to-file until Indiana court resolves its pending 12(b) motions; directed parties to report that outcome

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes the minimum contacts due process standard)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (requires minimum contacts, nexus, and reasonableness for specific jurisdiction)
Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 2003) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
Sneha Media & Ent., LLC v. Associated Broad. Co. P Ltd., 911 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2018) (lists nonexclusive factors for purposeful availment)
CFA Institute v. Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, 551 F.3d 285 (4th Cir. 2009) (contacts that repeatedly reach into the forum support jurisdiction)
Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co., 35 F.3d 939 (4th Cir. 1994) (factors to evaluate reasonableness of jurisdiction)
Allied–Gen. Nuclear Servs. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 675 F.2d 610 (4th Cir. 1982) (describes the first-to-file rule and its purpose)
Volvo Constr. Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., Inc., 386 F.3d 581 (4th Cir. 2004) (first suit generally has priority absent balance of convenience favoring the second)
CACI Int'l, Inc. v. Pentagen Techs. Int'l, Ltd., 70 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 1995) (the first-to-file rule is discretionary and not unyielding)
S. Plastics Co. v. S. Commerce Bank, 423 S.E.2d 128 (S.C. 1992) (South Carolina long-arm statute construed to reach constitutional due process limits)