Vizant Technologies, LLC v. Whitchurch
97 F. Supp. 3d 618
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Vizant Technologies (Delaware, principal place in Pennsylvania) sued former employees Julie Whitchurch and Jamie Davis after their terminations, alleging RICO, breach of contract, DUTSA (trade secrets), defamation, tortious interference, abuse of process, conversion, fraud, and civil conspiracy; plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction earlier in Georgia state court.
- Defendants had signed confidentiality/non‑competition/assignment agreements with two‑year post‑employment restrictions and a broad definition of "confidential information."
- After termination in December 2013, defendants allegedly sent emails, postcards, social‑media messages, created a website with allegedly defamatory/accusatory material, traveled to Pennsylvania, and retained company materials; Georgia court earlier entered a TRO and preliminary injunction, later dismissed after Vizant voluntarily dismissed its Georgia suit.
- Plaintiffs submitted evidence (transcripts, Bizzarro declaration) of multiple contacts directed at Pennsylvania: emails to Vizant officers/investors located in PA, website content, mailed postcards, in‑person visits, social‑media contacts, and continued access to company files.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)), failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)), and failure to join a necessary party (12(b)(7)).
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding specific personal jurisdiction over both defendants for all counts (under traditional minimum‑contacts analysis and, where relevant, Calder’s effects test) and rejecting the 12(b)(6)/(7) arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court has personal jurisdiction over defendants for RICO claims | RICO predicates (emails, calls, website, mailings) were purposely directed at PA; §1965 requires minimum contacts and defendants were former employees who targeted the forum | Defs. lack sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to permit jurisdiction | Court held PJ proper under §1965 and minimum‑contacts; jurisdiction over both defendants for RICO claims (denied 12(b)(2)) |
| Whether court has PJ for breach of contract claim | Contracts were executed to govern employment with PA company; defendants performed duties and traveled to PA — purposeful availment | Defs. argue lack of sufficient ties to PA to justify jurisdiction for contract claim | Court found specific PJ under traditional test (contracts with PA resident, continuing relationship) |
| Whether court has PJ for DUTSA/trade secrets, conversion, and other intentional torts | Misappropriation/retention and dissemination of confidential info was aimed at Vizant in PA; Calder effects test applies (intentional tort, focal point of harm in PA, expressly aimed) | Defs. assert insufficient contacts; Calder inapplicable beyond defamation | Court applied both traditional test and Calder where appropriate; PJ sustained for DUTSA, conversion, and related torts |
| Whether court has PJ for defamation, tortious interference, fraud, abuse of process, and conspiracy | Defamatory/fraudulent communications, website, mailings, and interference were expressly aimed at PA and caused harm there; Calder’s ‘‘effects’’ test met | Defs. contend contacts do not meet purposeful‑direction/express‑aiming standards | Court held PJ proper under traditional purposeful‑direction analysis and, alternatively, under Calder for intentional torts; conspiracy jurisdiction follows from underlying claims |
| Whether complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) | N/A (plaintiffs oppose dismissal) | Defs. argued claims insufficiently pleaded | Court denied 12(b)(6) motion (found arguments superficial and without merit) |
| Whether action should be dismissed for failure to join necessary party (Rule 12(b)(7)) | N/A | Defs. asserted necessary party not joined but provided limited analysis | Court denied 12(b)(7) motion (argument undeveloped) |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (due process minimum contacts standard)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (foreseeability and being haled into court)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (effects test for personal jurisdiction in intentional torts)
- Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir.) (specific and Calder analyses; plaintiff’s prima facie burden for PJ)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (3d Cir.) (plaintiff need only prima facie showing for PJ at motion‑to‑dismiss stage)
- Imo Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir.) (Calder applied to business torts; express‑aiming requirement)
- Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248 (3d Cir.) (contract contacts and PJ; assessment of totality of circumstances)
- PT United Can Co., Ltd. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 138 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.) (RICO §1965 requires minimum contacts for PJ)