Pronovost v. Tierney
166 A.3d 852
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff (Connecticut resident) sued defendant (nonresident) in Connecticut for negligence arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision that occurred in Maryland, seeking roughly $4,737 in damages.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Connecticut's long-arm statute, § 52-59b(a)(3)(B), and on due process grounds.
- Plaintiff argued jurisdiction existed because defendant operated a calligraphy/graphic design business engaged in interstate commerce.
- Defendant submitted an affidavit denying that she derived any revenue from Connecticut and argued the plaintiff failed to show she derived "substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" as interpreted in Ryan v. Cerullo.
- Trial court found no evidence defendant derived revenue from Connecticut or enough revenue to have a commercial impact in Connecticut, dismissed the complaint, and the plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 52-59b(a)(3)(B) requires that "substantial revenue" come from Connecticut or only from interstate commerce generally | "Substantial revenue" need only be from interstate commerce, not necessarily from Connecticut | "Substantial revenue" means enough revenue to indicate a commercial impact in the forum (i.e., revenue from or affecting Connecticut), per Ryan | Court: Bound by Ryan; plaintiff failed to show substantial revenue affecting Connecticut; statute does not authorize jurisdiction here |
| Whether asserting jurisdiction would satisfy due process where contacts are limited to the out-of-state accident | Jurisdiction proper under the statute as interpreted by plaintiff | Due process bars jurisdiction absent meaningful forum contacts; the accident alone and no Connecticut revenue mean minimum contacts lacking | Court: Exercising jurisdiction would violate Due Process; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ryan v. Cerullo, 282 Conn. 109 (defines "derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce" as revenue sufficient to indicate a commercial impact in the forum)
- Cogswell v. American Transit Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 505 (articulates minimum contacts/due process standard for in personam jurisdiction)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes the minimum contacts due process test)
- Gold v. Rowland, 296 Conn. 186 (standards for reviewing motions to dismiss and treating complaint allegations in plaintiff's favor)
- Cuozzo v. Orange, 315 Conn. 606 (court may consider undisputed facts in record, including affidavits, when deciding jurisdiction)