Robert Felland v. Patrick Clifton
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11380
7th Cir.2012Background
- Fellands, Wisconsin residents, contracted with Clifton Meridian (Arizona) to buy a condo in Puerto Peñasco, Mexico.
- PTA provided 30% down payment in three installments; Fellands paid $5,000 and then $63,000 after signing PTA.
- Clifton sent assurances of financing and on-time delivery, prompting continued installments; unit not delivered by deadline.
- Fellands learned financing was not secured; project funded by advance unit sales; Clifton sent ongoing updates.
- Fellands sued in Wisconsin state court for rescission and intentional misrepresentation; case removed to federal court in Wisconsin.
- District court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Felland appealed, arguing Wisconsin-directed communications create minimum contacts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wisconsin-directed communications establish minimum contacts for venue over Clifton. | Felland: communications were intended to lull and injure in Wisconsin. | Clifton: misrepresentations occurred in Mexico; later Wisconsin communications are attenuated. | Yes; communications establish minimum contacts for Wisconsin. |
| Whether the fraud claim supports specific jurisdiction under Calder/Tamburo. | Felland: ongoing Wisconsin-targeted misrepresentations form a fraudulent scheme. | Clifton: only pre-contract misrepresentations matter; later emails irrelevant. | Yes; ongoing Wisconsin-directed misrepresentations count. |
| Whether injury arises out of Clifton’s Wisconsin contacts. | Felland: injuries were caused in Wisconsin by Wisconsin-directed communications. | Clifton: injury relation not clearly tied to forum contacts. | Yes; injury arises out of forum-related conduct. |
| Whether Wisconsin’s long-arm statute supports jurisdiction. | Felland: 801.05(3) satisfies due process via local act/omission. | Clifton: statute may be limiting unless due process shown. | Yes; statute satisfied via local act/omission. |
| Whether exercising jurisdiction offends traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. | Felland: Wisconsin has strong interest; burden on Clifton justified by forum. | Clifton: forum is inconvenient and burdensome. | No substantial unfairness; jurisdiction proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (minimum contacts and purposeful direction framework)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court 1985) (purposeful direction and fair-play considerations)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (Supreme Court 1984) (aimed at forum state with foreseeable effects)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (minimum contacts standard)
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) (circuits divided on 'arising out' standard; related to jurisdictional causation)
- GCIU-Employer Ret. Fund v. Goldfarb Corp., 565 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2009) (discusses causal nexus in jurisdictional analysis)