Simmons v. Budde
38 N.E.3d 960
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On Oct. 9, 2008 Susan Simmons (Ohio resident) was injured as a passenger in a car driven by her daughter, Hannah (later Budde), in Missouri; the car was owned/registered in Ohio and insured in Ohio. Simmons returned to Ohio and received medical treatment there.
- Hannah was living in Missouri on a temporary Teach for America assignment at the time, later moved to Connecticut, but had ongoing ties to Ohio (wedding in Ohio, visits).
- Simmons sued Budde in Franklin County (filed Oct. 8, 2013) for negligence; Budde moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(2).
- The trial court granted dismissal, concluding the cause of action arose from conduct in Missouri and Ohio courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. Complaint dismissed without prejudice.
- On appeal Simmons argued Ohio courts had personal jurisdiction (primarily under the two-step specific-jurisdiction/long-arm analysis); she also attempted new theories on appeal (resident status/general jurisdiction), which the court declined to consider for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Budde under R.C. 2307.382 / Civ.R. 4.3 for tort arising from out-of-state automobile accident | Simmons: Ohio courts can exercise jurisdiction under long-arm provisions (A)(4), (8), (9) and Civ.R.4.3 because injury effects and treatment occurred in Ohio and Budde had continuing contacts with Ohio | Budde: The tortious act (automobile collision) occurred in Missouri; Simmons’ post-accident treatment/continuing effects in Ohio do not make the cause of action arise from conduct in Ohio | Court: No. Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the cause of action arose from conduct in Ohio under the cited long-arm provisions; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the trial court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing or explicit prima facie analysis | Simmons: Trial court should have held evidentiary hearing and explicitly discussed prima facie showing | Budde: Undisputed facts do not establish prima facie jurisdiction; no hearing required | Court: No. Where plaintiff cannot show sufficient evidence to permit reasonable minds to conclude jurisdiction exists, an evidentiary hearing is not required; dismissal without prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (Ohio 2010) (personal-jurisdiction two-step analysis; plaintiff bears burden; prima facie showing required absent evidentiary hearing)
- Goldstein v. Christiansen, 70 Ohio St.3d 232 (Ohio 1994) (framework for specific personal jurisdiction over nonresidents)
- Fraley v. Estate of Oeding, 138 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2014) (reiterating two-step inquiry: long-arm statute then due-process analysis)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; context for focusing on specific vs. general jurisdiction)
- Kentucky Oaks Mall Co. v. Mitchell's Formal Wear, Inc., 53 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 1990) (explaining long-arm/statute-based jurisdiction inquiry)
- Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarco, 116 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 2007) (discussing resident status and application of Ohio jurisdiction principles)