53 F. Supp. 3d 61
D.D.C.2014Background
- Turner, pro se, sues Abbott and the OCC seeking declaratory judgment that Texas non-judicial foreclosure statute Tex. Prop. Code ch. 51 is unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcement.
- Plaintiff alleges due process and equal protection violations from Texas foreclosure schemes; asserts widespread misconduct by mortgage lenders, including loss of home.
- Plaintiff asserts land at 6802 Hot Springs Court, Dallas County, Texas; loan originated ~2004 with AmericaHomeKey, Inc.; loan note transferred to MERS with an eNote.
- Foreclosure proceedings were non-judicial and initiated by US Bank on July 12, 2013.
- Abbott moves to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, standing, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and failure to state a claim; court grants on personal jurisdiction basis.
- Court analyzes general and specific jurisdiction under DC long-arm statute; ultimately dismisses Abbott without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the DC court have general jurisdiction over Abbott? | Abbott domiciled in Texas; no DC principal place of business. | No DC domicile or principal place of business; general jurisdiction inappropriate. | No general jurisdiction over Abbott. |
| Does the DC court have specific jurisdiction under DC long-arm § 13-423(a)(1) for Abbott’s conduct related to DC litigation? | Abbott transacted business in DC by participating in DC litigation against banks; relevant contacts support jurisdiction. | DC litigation does not arise from Texas statutes at issue; contacts insufficient; no minimum contacts. | No specific jurisdiction over Abbott. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atherton v. D.C. Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (presumption of truth for pleadings on motion to dismiss)
- Pease v. Burke, 535 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2008) (general jurisdiction framework)
- Thompson Hine, LLP v. Taieb, 734 F.3d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (long-arm and due process considerations)
- GTE New Media Servs., Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (merges statutory and constitutional jurisdiction inquiries)
- Schwartz v. CDI Japan, Ltd., 938 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996) (minimum contacts and purposeful availment standard)
- United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d 825 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (DC courts interpret specific jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by due process)
- 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. 286 (U.S. 1980) (minimum contacts and foreseeability in forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (long-term contacts and foreseen effects in forum)
- Dooley v. United Tech. Corp., 786 F. Supp. 65 (D.D.C. 1992) (minimum contacts framework for specific jurisdiction)
- Travelers Health Ass’n v. Va. ex rel. State Corp. Com’n, 339 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1950) (continuing obligations and forum connections)
- Mizlou Television Network, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 603 F. Supp. 677 (D.D.C. 1984) (relationship among defendant, forum, and litigation in minimum contacts analysis)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984) (nonresident's contacts and state interests in personal jurisdiction)