THE MILLENNIUM GROUP OF DELAWARE, INC. v. MIKKOLA
3:23-cv-03081
D.N.J.Feb 15, 2024Background
- TMG, a New Jersey-based business process outsourcing company, employed Travis Mikkola as a National Business Development Specialist from March 2019 to April 2023.
- Mikkola worked remotely from Texas but had regular contact with TMG’s New Jersey headquarters and clients, and made at least two visits to New Jersey.
- Upon leaving TMG, Mikkola joined a direct competitor, IST Management Services, and was allegedly found to have accessed and used TMG’s confidential information to solicit TMG’s clients, including those in New Jersey.
- TMG filed suit alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference, among other claims, and supported its arguments with detailed affidavits and evidence of Mikkola’s contacts with New Jersey clients.
- Mikkola filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the court reviewed on briefs and supporting evidence without oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over nonresident | Mikkola targeted and harmed TMG, a NJ company, and NJ-based clients | Lacks sufficient contacts with NJ; worked remotely from TX; travel compelled by TMG | NJ court has personal jurisdiction over Mikkola |
| Sufficiency of factual allegations for PJ | Provided affidavits/evidence showing NJ contacts and harm to NJ interests | Complaint is deficient; new facts in opposition should not be considered | Evidence beyond pleadings is proper for 12(b)(2) motions |
| Application of Calder effects test | Mikkola’s intentional acts targeted at TMG & NJ clients focused the harm in NJ | No direct involvement with NJ-specific clients or projects | Calder test satisfied—intentional torts focused on NJ |
| Fair play and substantial justice | Mikkola was long aware of TMG’s NJ base; regular contact with NJ employees/clients | No substantial argument presented on this element | Assertion of jurisdiction is fair and just under the facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361 (3d Cir. 2002) (plaintiff bears burden to show facts establishing personal jurisdiction)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir. 2004) (New Jersey’s long-arm permits expansive jurisdiction within due process limits)
- IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) (Calder effects test for intentional torts and personal jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction for individuals focuses on domicile)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional torts and the effects in the forum can establish jurisdiction)
- Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007) (application of Calder effects test)
- Patterson v. FBI, 893 F.2d 595 (3d Cir. 1990) (evidence and affidavits may be considered on 12(b)(2) motions)