Rice v. M-E-C Company, 2:17-cv-01274

Background

Plaintiff Stephen Rice, former M-E-C employee, alleges unpaid commissions/retirement contributions, wrongful termination, conversion of property, and related torts after relocating to Charleston, SC to open an M-E-C office.
Key events: Rice says he was not paid beginning Q4 2015; on May 9, 2016 he met with Amanda Fisk and Lynn Lichtenfeld; on May 10 he alleges his phone was disconnected, office locks changed, and Lichtenfeld emailed his termination.
Several non-resident individuals (board members, officers, shareholders) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; some also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Defendants Walden, Hudson, Shields, Parker, Johnston, Andreas, and Fisk filed motions; motions are ripe for decision.
The Court conducted the usual minimum-contacts analysis (general vs. specific jurisdiction) under the Fourteenth Amendment and Fourth Circuit precedent, applying a three-part test for specific jurisdiction.
Court disposition: motions to dismiss of Walden, Hudson, Shields, Parker, and Johnston granted; motions of Lichtenfeld, Andreas, and Fisk denied (personal jurisdiction over Lichtenfeld, Andreas, Fisk; dismissal of Walden with consent; Andreas/Fisk failure-to-state claim denial without prejudice).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over Pamela Walden	Walden is an M-E-C shareholder tied to company actions	Walden only inherited <1% stock; never transacted business in SC	Dismissed (Plaintiff consents to dismissal)
Personal jurisdiction over Michael Hudson & W. Kent Shields	Board/shareholder status and limited contacts with M-E-C’s SC office suffice	They lack continuous/systematic SC contacts and had no personal involvement in alleged post‑2015 injuries	Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction over Stephen D. Parker & Jacob R. Johnston	Board service and corporate control tie them to M-E-C’s SC activities and Rice’s injuries	Board membership alone (and affidavits denying involvement) insufficient; no specific acts causally tied to injury	Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction over Lynn Ann Lichtenfeld	She was involved in May 9–10 events (in‑person meeting, termination email, locks changed, withheld pay)	Generally argued like other nonresident directors	Denied — specific jurisdiction found based on alleged in‑person acts and direct involvement
Personal jurisdiction over John Andreas & Amanda Fisk	Fisk visited SC office and, with Andreas as a board member/owner, participated in termination and related acts	They lack continuous/systematic contacts; Andreas contends no personal involvement	Denied — prima facie specific jurisdiction based on Fisk’s in‑person contacts and allegations of Andreas’ involvement
Failure to state a claim (Andreas & Fisk)	Rice alleges wage, ERISA, conversion, tort claims	Andreas/Fisk moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim but did not develop arguments	Denied without prejudice (court will not construct arguments for defendants)

Key Cases Cited

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts must have jurisdiction over subject matter and parties)
Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction: forum where defendant is "at home")
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and contractual relationships inform specific jurisdiction)
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful direction/availment)
Consulting Eng’rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273 (Fourth Circuit three-part test for specific jurisdiction)
ESAB Grp. v. Zurich Ins. PLC, 685 F.3d 376 (South Carolina’s long-arm statute construed to Due Process limits)
Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673 (prima facie burden and pleading standards for personal jurisdiction challenges)