Westley v. Mann, 896 F. Supp. 2d 775

Background

Plaintiff John D. Westley, pro se, sues Florida defendants over a loan guarantee for a Miami Beach property and related conduct concerning AFTEF and Bayview Lincoln Road LLC.
Westley alleges violations including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, RICO, civil rights, and related claims arising from 2007–2011 events surrounding the Property at 605 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach.
Westley’s claims center on a mortgage/guaranty transaction secured by Silver Hill Financial and the subsequent Florida litigation and deficiencies, with Minnesota as the proposed forum due to Westley’s residence and related financial records.
Defendants move toDismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Thomas, Sigler, City of Miami Beach, Sklar, Kalka) and to Dismiss/Summary Judgment on Silver Hill Financial’s claims (Rule 12(b)(6)/(56)).
The Magistrate recommends granting the motions against Thomas, Sigler, City of Miami Beach, Sklar, Kalka (lack of jurisdiction) and granting Silver Hill’s dismissal (with some claims barred by res judicata).
The Court adopts the R&R and dismisses various claims without prejudice or with prejudice as detailed in the order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Minnesota long-arm and due process allow personal jurisdiction over Thomas	Westley asserts continuous Minnesota contacts via distribution of Thomas’s products through Minnesota retailers.	Thomas has no Minnesota contacts; no Minnesota-based conduct related to the claims; stream-of-commerce insufficient.	Lack of personal jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice.
Whether Minnesota has personal jurisdiction over Sigler	Westley argues ongoing Florida proceedings and Minnesota-records establish contacts.	Sigler had no Minnesota contacts; acts occurred in Florida; no nexus to Minnesota.	Lack of personal jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice.
Whether City of Miami Beach and Sklar have personal jurisdiction in Minnesota	Westley cites Minnesota tax notices and fees; ongoing business relations with Minnesota retailers.	No direct Minnesota contacts; alleged contacts are incidental and insufficient for jurisdiction.	Lack of personal jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice.
Whether Kalka has personal jurisdiction in Minnesota	Kalka engaged with Minnesota parties in financing and inducing Westley to guarantee loans.	No Minnesota visits or travel; Digi-Tel distinguishing; no substantial Minnesota contacts.	Lack of personal jurisdiction; dismissal without prejudice.
Whether Silver Hill Financial’s claims are barred by res judicata and/or fail to state a claim	Westley asserts private federal claims and ongoing disputes against Silver Hill.	Florida action and privity with Bayview; res judicata applies; many claims lack legal basis (no private TILA/OSHA/RICO).	Res judicata bars some claims with prejudice; other claims dismissed for failure to state a claim; remaining claims dismissed without prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (minimum contacts and fair play standard for specific jurisdiction)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (limits general jurisdiction; stream-of-commerce not enough)
Digi-Tel Holdings, Inc. v. Proteq Telecomm. (PTE), Ltd., 89 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 1996) (distinguishes between general and specific jurisdiction; face-to-face in forum required)
K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2011) (five-factor test for minimum contacts; contract alone insufficient)
Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: plausible claims required)
Iqbal v. Hasty, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; not mere conclusory statements)
Pecoraro v. Sky Ranch for Boys, Inc., 340 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 2003) (minimum contacts viewed for prima facie jurisdictional showing)