Thompson Hine LLP v. Smoking Everywhere, Inc.
840 F. Supp. 2d 138
D.D.C.2012Background
- Thompson Hine LLP sues Smoking Everywhere, Inc. (SE), SE’s CEO Taieb, and EC Distribution for unpaid legal fees and alleged fraudulent transfer.
- SE is a Florida corporation; Taieb resides in Florida; Thompson Hine is an Ohio LLP with an office in DC.
- Two retainer agreements: Mar 19, 2009 (general representation on e-cigarette issues) and Sept 30, 2009 (defense of an Oregon action).
- The Oregon action involved Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act; the DC action involves payment for services.
- Thompson Hine seeks to establish personal jurisdiction over SE and Taieb in DC; SE and Taieb move to dismiss or transfer under Rule 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6).
- The court grants the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over SE and Taieb without addressing venue or merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC long-arm statute and due process authorize jurisdiction over SE. | SE transacted business in DC via Thompson Hine engagement. | First engagement centered in Georgia; second engaged DC lawyers but for Oregon matter; minimal DC contacts. | No personal jurisdiction over SE (insufficient minimum contacts). |
| Whether Taieb has personal jurisdiction individually. | Taieb participated in second engagement and meetings in DC. | Taieb’s involvement limited; not party to first engagement; only one DC meeting and limited communications. | No personal jurisdiction over Taieb (insufficient individual contacts). |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (requires substantial connection and reasonable foreseeability of forum proceedings)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishes minimum contacts for due process)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1980) (establishes purposeful availment and fair play concepts)
- Mouzavires v. Baxter, 434 A.2d 988 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (emphasizes qualitative assessment of contacts and fairness)
- Exponential Biotherapies, Inc. v. Houthoff Buruma N.V., 638 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009) (discusses minimum contacts with DC in professional-relationship context)
- Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP, 786 F. Supp. 2d 240 (D.D.C. 2011) (factors for presence and contacts in DC injuries)