*1 978 Cir.1989) (citing Jasany v. United
(6th Sеrvice, 755 F.2d CONTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, Postal States T. James the Burdine Cir.1985)) (adopting (6th n. 5 v. standards, plain- the Burdine test). Under honesty and trustworthiness lacked the tiff CORPORA- PRODUCTS PNEUMATIC post- position. the USPS required for McCurry, H. Michael TION not have plaintiff stated master Defendants-Appellees. ap- plaintiffs employment had offered been time known at been plication omissions No. 91-3918. failure though plaintiffs hiring. Even Appeals, States Court United truthfully was application complete to Circuit. Sixth enti- he is not post-termination, discovered when relief handicap discrimination tled 7,May Argued posi- initially qualified was not to re- entitled plaintiff is Proof that tion. 6, 1992. Oct. Decided handicap discrimination lief is essential Collins, F.2d v. claims. Crabtree Cir.1990). (6th post-termination 82-83 fraud is plaintiffs application evidence “pre- injury, his claim
relevant relief or any present grant
cludes 708; Summers, see remedy." Sys., Honeywell v.
Johnson Info. Cir.1992) (evidence employee’s post-termination discovered
misconduct for termi- just cause show admissible action). wrongful discharge
nation a factual cannot party
A create affidavit, a mo filing after dispute made, judgment has been summary
tion for testimony. earlier contradicts Co., Nat’l Ins. Gagne Northwestern mis Plaintiff the sum by opposing
led the district conflicting motion with two
mary judgment regarding prior his statements explain attempt to made no
termination Thus, plaintiff did his inconsistencies. fact. material genuine issue of
establish precludes application fraud plaintiffs
As relief, element of an essential an award of claim, defen handicap discrimination his judgment. summary are dants entitled 322, 106 Corp.,
See Celotex judgment proper (summary at 2552 ele prove essential fails plaintiff claim).
ment of reasons, AFFIRM foregoing we
For K. Hackett. Judge Barbara
the decision *2 Tamborski, Thompson, Hiñe &
Peter E. Cincinnati, Ohio, Farmer, Guy II Flory, briefed), Lardner, Foley (argued and & Jacksonville, Fla., defendants-appellees. for BOGGS, Before: GUY and Circuit RONEY, Judges; and Senior Circuit Judge *.
RONEY, Judge. Circuit Senior appeal from an order dismiss- This is an complaint, in ing diversity jurisdiction long juris- plaintiff asserted arm diction, personal jurisdic- of lack of because Agreeing that tion over the defendants. had insufficient contaсts the defendants subject them to plaintiff with case, jurisdiction in this we af- the court’s firm. rep- allegations of false
The suit involves in connection by Defendants resentation Plaintiff, a Ohio the recruitment resident, po- high-level administrative for company’s office in Florida. at the sition largely facts is taken The recitation of opinion. See the district court’s Products v. Pneumatic T. Conti James (S.D.Ohio, Aug. Corp., No. C-1-91-081 1991). Pneumatic Products Defendant corporation, a (Pneumatic) Delaware is a pneumatic air seller of manufacturer and place principal systems, with drying Ocala, H. Florida. Defendant business president and chief McCurry, the Michael during Pneumatic officer of executive T. Florida. Plaintiff James a resident of of Ohio. is a resident 1990, Conti, early while In late 1989 or Ohio, Journal responded to a Wall Street directory of executive for a advertisement directory included a recruiting firms. The of Lake Manаgement Recruiters listing for Recruiters), an (Management Inc. County, recruiting headquartered firm executive March Dora, early Mount to Man- letter and resume mailed a Recruiters, placed briefed), which were agement Blessing (argued and H. William resumes. for unsolicited file maintained Cincinnati, plaintiff-appellant. * Circuit, sitting by designation. Roney, the Eleventh Senior Circuit Paul H. The Honorable Appeals Judge the United States Court of parties to conduct court allowed 1990,McCurry Man- asked
Late in March did not conduct an discovery, but some an execu- perform agement Recruiters order In a detailed evidentiary hearing. vice-presi- position search for tive dismiss, motion to Defendants’ granting facility engineering at Pneumatic’s dent *3 long that Ohio’s court stated the district Ocala, Management Recruiters statute, 2307.- Ohio Rev.Code § his arm later forwarded and Conti contacted (A)(6), personal 382(A)(4) provides for and Acting on behalf of Pneumatic. resume Pneumatic and over both jurisdiction made Pneumatic, Management Recruiters the exercise McCurry, but determined and in Ohio phone calls to Conti several the defendants jurisdiction over personal of him Ohio. Pneumatic literature sent concepts of the traditional offend during telephone would alleges that these Conti justice embodied play and substantial act- fair Management Recruiters conversations of the Fourteenth process clause made fraud- in the due agent and for Pneumatic ed Pneu- regarding Amendment. misrepresentations ulent financial
matic’s condition. the Ohio appeals, urging Conti of arranged Management Recruiters court’s meet with constitutional. We Florida to to travel over Defendants Conti dispute on Pneumatic officials the initial McCurry and resolve need not carry Shortly following Conti’s must Conti parties occasions. ovеr the burden two Florida, offered urges Pneumatic that he trip Conti second establish May accepted demonstrating he position, and only the burden of him bears case for 'prima support 1990. facts which facie no eviden- was jurisdiction, because there not apparently did Although Pneumatic hearing. Greetings tiary See American mid-June, to start work before Conti want 1164, (6th Cohn, 1168-69 Corp. 839 F.2d v. payroll placed to be on asked Conti Cir.1988). argue that Conti Defendants unemployed. Thus May he was because by a Ohio’s must demonstrate May began employment with Pneumatic his rather than preponderance evidence 1990, 21, month was and for first showing, making prima by simply doing preparatory to his move facie work Ohio permitted discov the district court because salary paid Conti a Florida. Pneumatic solely on rely affidavits. ery did not Pneu- began work in that month. Conti v. Union Research See Market/Media Florida, Ocala, Junе facility in matic’s Cir.1991), 102, (6th Pub., 104 951 F.2d Tribune 5, 1990, 18, position On October 1990. — U.S.-, denied, rt. engineering elimi- vice-president was ce (1992); v. 79, Theunissen L.Ed.2d 43 121 Conti terminated. nated 1454, Matthews, 1458 Cir. 935 against complaint in filed a Ohio Bank, 1991); v. First Tennessee Serras McCurry for fraudulent Pneumatic 1212, N.A., 875 estoppel, promissory misrepresentation, prima under the lesser show- Even fiduciary duty, and breach of breach facie however, considering the evidence ing, alleged that the He contract. plaintiff, to the most favorable light to him the misrepresentations fraudulent support- condition, not demonstrated facts has financial Pneumatic’s regarding are not The facts ing jurisdiction. essential to Florida directly during his visits both dispute is in disputed. only real really telephone to him indirectly during calls Therefore, facts. significance these agent, in Ohio Pneumatic’s deciding the court did err in not that he He detrimen- Recruiters. asserted early relatively issue misrepresentations tally relied оn these evidentiary offer, conducting an accept leave without deciding to Pneumatic’s Market/Media, F.2d at reject hearing. another See employment in his offer. job correctness dis- We need not determine motion to response to Defendants’ statutory decision. of the district court’s personal jurisdiction, for lack
miss
support.
for technical
employees
Pneumatic
appeal is the
controlling issue on this
prima
has not established
subject a de Conti
To
standard.
constitutional
facie
Pneumatic’s contacts with
jurisdiction of
case that
fendant
systematic” na-
certain
a “continuous and
must “have
are of
court, the defendant
constitutionally
such
such that
could
ture
contacts with
forum]
minimum
[the
Pneu-
general
suit does
maintain
maintenance
that the
unrelated to
play and
in an action
MeCurry
fair
matic or
notions of
offend ‘traditional
”
Bank,
contacts.
Third Nat’l.
Shoe
its Ohio
justice.’
International
substantial
Cf.
310, 316,
Michigan
F.2d at 1088-89. But
Washington, 326 U.S.
v.Co.
cf.
Dinette, Inc., 888
158,
(1945) (quoting
Quality
Nat’l. Bank
90 L.Ed.
(6th Cir.1989).
465-67
Meyer,
Milliken v.
*4
(1940)). “In
342-43,
339,
jurisdiction.” Third
correctly focused
1089. The district
Inc.,
Group,
ville v. WEDGE
general
jurisdiction, rather than
specific
omitted),
Cir.1989)(citations
1087, 1089(6th
870,
1058, 110 S.Ct.
denied, 493 U.S.
cert.
(1990).
The
Circuit has utilized
L.Ed.2d
Sixth
determining whether
part
test for
three
general juris
exercise of
proper
A
may
exercised
specific jurisdiction
be
contacts
the “defendant’s
requires
diction
of due
requirements
compliance with
of such
forum state
with the
be]
[to
process.
that the
systematic' nature
‘continuous
purposefully
First,
must
the defendant
may exercise
state
acting in
privilege
avail himself of
is
the aсtion
even if
over the defendant
causing a conse-
or
the forum state
with
contacts
the defendant’s
unrelated to
forum state.
quence in the
Bank,
at
882 F.2d
Nat’l.
the state.” Third
arise
Second,
of action must
the cause
argue for
does not even
1087. Plaintiff
there.
activities
from the defendant’s
MeCurry. Al
general
jurisdiction over
or conse-
Third,
the defendant
the acts of
argues that
though Plaintiff
must
by the
caused
defendant
quences
Pneu
over
general jurisdiction
court had
enough connection
have a substantial
argu
matic,
support
not
facts do
the exer-
make
state to
with the forum
ment.
the defendant
over
cise
licensed to do business
Pneumatic is not
reasonable.
or
Ohio,
maintain an office
not
does
In
v. Mohasco
Co.
Machine
See Southern
any
not own
employees in
does
dustries, Inc.,
Cir.
401 F.2d
prod-
sells
property in Ohio. Pneumatic
1968).
are
States. Sales
ucts all over
United
found that Defendants
district court
or
The
for resale
to distributors
made either
test.
part of this
first
not meet the
end user.
do
Pneumatic to the
directly by
Management Recruiters
alleges
products
in Ohio
sells its
Pneumatic
of Pneumat-
authority to act on behalf
distribu-
These
distributors.
two
therefore,
is liable for
ic; and,
Pneumatic
agents in connec-
Pneumatic’s
tors act as
representations
fraudulent
end
sales to
direct
tion with Pneumatic’s
in Ohio to Conti.
Management Recruiters
and,
Pneu-
users;
they regularly purchase
Bank,
City
Tri
Bankers
The American
resale
Ohio.
products
matic
Life
ques-
The
677 F.2d
these distributors
of one of
annual sales
not,
is
howev-
$900,-
appeal
us on
tion before
approximately
total
Ohio customers
Re-
er,
acts of
usually
whether
themselves
The distributors
ultimately
in Pneumat-
result
cruiters will
occa-
products they
On
sell.
service the
question
liability
ic’s
to Conti.
telephoned
sion,
they are visited
the ac-
result from
proximately
Manage-
contacts
actions of
alleged
whether
that cre-
defendant
by the
tions
Recruiters, McCurry, or Pneumatic
himself
ment
with
connection”
a “substantial
purposefully
ate
Defendants
demonstrate
act-
State.
forum
privilege
themselves
availed
consequence
causing a
ing in
at
105 S.Ct.
King, 471
Burger
may exercise
that Ohio
such
omitted)
state
forum
(citations and footnote
2183-84
Defendants
over
resident’s
A forum
original).
(emphasis
those actions.
connection
out-of-state
with an
contract
automatically estab-
is insufficient
district
alone
fully supports
The record
Burg-
defendant.
lish
contacts
Defendants’
finding that
court’s
2185;
fortuitous,
471 U.S. at
random,
King,
and er
with Ohio
Lanier,
at 910.
meet the
attenuated,
do
see
and therefore
all relevant
properly considered
thus
test. Defendants
part of the Mohasco
first
in Lani-
by this Court
resi-
set forth
an Ohio
recruit
matters
purposefully
did not
contemplated fu-
vice-president
negotiаtions,
“[Pjrior
position of
fill the
er.
dent to
facility in Oca-
terms
consequences, the
at Pneumatic’s
ture
engineering
dealing need
contacted
tract,
actual course
la,
Defendants
and the
Instead
*5
evaluate,
‘highly
headquar-
recruiting firm
to
addressed
executive
to be
a local
or-
conse-
Dora,
future
way,
Florida. Conti
the intended
tered in Mount
realistic’
recruiting
object of the
real
directory
executive
‘the
that are
quences
dered a
”
to
Lanier,
F.2d
resume
an
843
sent
unsolicited
firms and
transaction.’
business
King,
Defendants
Burger
Recruiters.
quoting
Management
(apparently
at 910
2185).
in the
interest
479,
resident’s
at
of an Ohio
105 S.Ct.
learned
471 U.S.
in
engineering
vice-president of
position of
isolat-
may have been an
Although there
ac-
to this unilateral
office due
its Florida
McCurry
conversation between
phone
ed
tivity of Plaintiff.
Ohio,
in
the
Conti was
while
and Conti
wrongful
state-
court
district court’s
argues
supports
Conti
record
con-
directly
for” test
mechanical “but
never
applied a
ly
that Defendant
ment
Bd.
hiring
American
him.
citing Lanier v.
to
prior
in
jurisdiction,
tacted Conti
(6th
901,
Endodontics,
910
F.2d
843
between Conti
Substantially all contact
926,
denied,
109 S.Ct.
McCurry
U.S.
Cir.),
488
both
McCurry
cert.
occurred when
(1988),
states
which
310,
Although Conti al-
L.Ed.2d 329
102
in
solicited
party
which
mailed
question
paid
for and
that “the
leges that Defendants
irrelevant,
long
so
Ohio,
is
interface
in
mailed
the business
to Conti
airline tickets
Ohio,
activities
then directed
in
conduct-
directly
as defendant
to Conti
materials
reading of
A full
negotiations with
resident.”
the forum
contract
ed extensive
however,
discloses,
Re-
opinion
court’s
district
in Ohio
a mechanical
apply
court did not
cruiters,
that
an
and mailed
King
Burger
rejected
these
test,
as was
such
to Conti
letter
tract offer
462, 478, 105
Rudzewicz,
U.S.
471
estab-
insufficient to
Corp. v.
alleged contacts are
(1985),but
2174, 2185,
528
85 L.Ed.2d
over Defendants
S.Ct.
lish
the facts
determine
all
considered
rathеr
requirement
“purposeful availment”
Bank,
Tennessee
v.
In
First
Serras
King.
Burger
forth
set
Cir.1989),
1212, 1217
N.A.,
875
require
reversed the
availment”
the Court
“purposeful
although
motion
defendant’s
grant of the
ment
court’s
jur-
that
dismiss, the Court stated
ha-
will not be
that
ensures
if
been established
have
isdiction
solely as
result
led into
the defendant
only contact was
“fortuitous,”
“random,”
or “attenuated”
to the
telephone call
an out-of-state
activity of made
contacts,
the “unilateral
or of
plain-
to solicit
state
in the
plaintiff
forum
person.” Juris-
third
party or a
another
transac-
out-of-state
engage
tiff
however,
where
proper,
is
diction
983
represents
criterion
traveled
[Mohasco ]
the defendant
“[E]ach
tion.
Serras
requirement, and failure to
independent
plaintiffs
to solicit
forum state
per-
any one of the three means
meet
fraudulent
allegedly made
business
jurisdiction may not be invoked.”
sonal
875
in the state.
while
reprеsentations
LAK,
failure
tion from presents question This case de novo. interviews. to Florida twice ti to travel law, long-arm statute founded on Ohio’s travelling arrangements PPC made Conti’s Burgеr King Process Clause. and the Due in Ohio. plane Conti and sent tickets 462, 471-73, Rudzewicz, Corp. v. from these returned to Ohio After Conti 2181-82, 85 L.Ed.2d interviews, extensive PPC conducted (1985). whether it can as- determining “In During these him. negotiations with tract personal jurisdiction over a nonresi- sert directly or negotiations, PPC either case, diversity defendant in a a district dent Recruiters, agent, of the state in apply must the law ma- and related employment offers mailed sits, subject process due limita- it telephone Direct terial Conti Roberts, 908 F.2d tions.” Creech All of place with Conti. negotiations took (6th Cir.1990). purposefully directed activity was case, following long-arm In this accepted eventually in Ohio. Conti Conti applies: statute the offer while accepted offer. He PPC’s Thus, negotiation personal jurisdic- may both the A he was in Ohio. directly byor employment person acts formation tion over a who and eventual arising to ac- actiоn place agent, Prior to a took Ohio. cause contract tentatively job, person’s: cepting the PPC Dynamics accepted position with General that tentative withdrew
in Detroit. Conti (3) injury by an act or Causing tortious accept PPC’s that he could acceptance so state; omission employment. offer injury by an act or (4) Causing tortious officially with PPC Conti’s regu- if he this state outside of omission the first May For began on business, engages larly does or solicits remained employment, month of his conduct, persistent course of any *8 words, In other Conti was revenue or derives substantial payroll one month employee on PPC’s for ren- or services goods used or consumed eventually moved in the state of Ohio. He state; dered working began and Florida in June 1990 he moved 18. after at PPC on June Soon Florida, the state- learned (6) injury Conti in this state Causing tortious health PPC’s financial
ments made about outside this state any рerson by an act 1990, McCurry By purpose injuring false. October committed with because might reasonably terminated Conti’s have he persons, when re- Conti then financial difficulties. in- person PPC’s would be expected that some state; to Ohio. thereby turned jured this any person (7) injury to Causing tortious give Conti it did not PPC claims act, any element of which criminal company or its a concerning the specific data state, he com- place in this statements, only general takes gave financial but he is in the commission which all mits or contends that information. PPC also complicity. guilty of contacts, person by phone, and be- both in 986 472, 462, 105 S.Ct. 471 U.S. (6), King, (4), Burger 2307.382(A)(3), & Rev.Code § (quoting 2182, 528 (7) 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d (6) 2307.382(A)(3), and (7). Shaffer Sections 2569, 186, 218, 97 S.Ct. Heitner, 433 U.S. personal specific v. for the basis provide each J., (Stevens, (1977) 2307.382(A)(4) 2587, 683 allows 53 L.Ed.2d Section
jurisdiction. Volkswagen concurring) and general World-Wide the exercise for 297, 286, 100 Woodson, stat- Ohio’s 444 U.S. held that the Corp. v. The district (1980)). jur- This personal 567, 490 specific 559, 62 L.Ed.2d reаch allows ute’s S.Ct. (Pursu- McCurry. if is satisfied warning” requirement and over PPC isdiction “fair However, (6)). 2307.382(A)(3) directed” “purposefully ant to has the defendant § vio- would found that state the forum toward his activities (This seems case. relate process due of or late out injuries “arise alleged Ibid, long-arm the Ohio face since on its odd Keeton (quoting bit those activities. to” only to the extend has been held 770, Inc., statute 465 U.S. Magazine, Hustler v. Ameri- process clause. the due limits of 1478, 790 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 774, 104 S.Ct. Cohn, 839 F.2d Corp. v. Greetings can Co de Helicopteros Nacionales (1984)and Cir.1988); De- In-Flight 1164, 1167 414, 408, 104 Hall, lombia, U.S. 466 S.A. Air, Inc., 466 Dusen Corp. v. Van vices (1984)). 1868, 1872, L.Ed.2d 404 S.Ct. Cir.1972)). The court 220, 224 jurisdic- personal determining whether alleged that he the fact that relied on touch- then, exists, “the constitutional tion he det- injury because suffered pur- the defendant whether remains stone misrepre- fraudulent rimentally relied on ‘minimumcontacts’ established posefully by PPC both made sentations 474, at 105 S.Ct. state.” Id. the forum alleged McCurry is trips to Floridа. on his words, the defendant’s In other personal- misrepresentations to have state the forum and connection with duct a tortious Conti, suffered ly to “reasonably should such must be party a result. Neither injury Ohio there.” into court being haled anticipate conten- district court’s really contests 297, Volkswagen, U.S. World-Wide jurisdic- supports Ohio statute tion that act must be some at 567. There 100 S.Ct. then, us, The issue before tion here. avails purposely the defendant “by which jurisdic- the exercise whether conducting activi- privilege of itself of the comport with this case tion in State, invoking thus the forum ties within process. due requirements of constitutional laws.” of its protections the benefits that in order requires process Due 253, 235, Denckla, U.S. Hanson v. to exercise (1958). 1240, 2 1228, L.Ed.2d cer- defendant, have must jur- Further, single support act can even with the contacts tain minimum required it creates long as isdiction as does of the lawsuit maintenance such that McGee the forum state. relationship with play fair notions of traditional not offend Co., 355 Insurance v. International Life justice. International and substantial 201, 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 78 S.Ct. Washington, 326 U.S. Co. v. Shoe (1957). (1945). The 154, 158, L.Ed. 95 held has also Supreme Court Finally, the purpose discussed Court has Supreme anal- contacts from the minimum apart as follows: requirements process due *9 fac- may also consider ysis, a court have “fair individuals By requiring that the exercise whether tors to determine activity may particular warning that a be consistent jurisdiction would personal of a jurisdiction to the subject [them] justice” play substantial “fair the Process sovereign,” the Due foreign Shoe. requirement International degree predictability “gives a Clause at at 105 King, U.S. Burger potential system that allows legal to the considerations, for are 2184. There certain primary structure their instance, establish could sometimes that assurance minimum with some conduct showing of mini- оn a jurisdiction lesser and will not conduct will that as where re- be otherwise than would mum contacts to suit.” them liable render Ill 2184. at 105 S.Ct. Id. at quired. the on the burden include These factors mo- case, judge granted the In this the in ad- interest defendant, state’s forum the holding an eviden- to dismiss without tion plaintiffs however, inter- did, the dispute, al- the
judicating hearing. The tiary discovery and and effective some obtaining parties take convenient the low est as as well depositions inter- consider three judicial it did relief, system’s the interstate part of documentary evidence certain resolu- most efficient obtaining the est Circuit, In this to dismiss. the motion inter- controversies, the shared tion of solely parties’ relies on a court furthering states the several ests of decision, plaintiff to reach its affidavits policies. World-Wide social substantive showing prima a only must make facie at at 444 U.S. Volkswagen, exists in order personal play “fair concept of Similarly, 564. Theunissen, F.2d at dismissal. defeat juris- may defeat justice” substantial Further, are to be pleadings 1458. purposely has a defendant diction where to the most favorable light considered activities, such a but engaged forum However, sharp Id. plaintiff. at quite difficult. normally be showing will proce- summary judgment to the contrast 477-78, 105 S.Ct. at King, Burger weigh the contro- dure, not the court does at 2184-85. seeking dis- party verting of the assertions applied has Historically, 12(b)(2) this Circuit PPC claims by motion. missal taken, determining whether the stan- discovery some following criteria since stricter, and that Conti ex- properly should be has been dard by prove jurisdiction required to should be court: by a district ercised Howev- of the evidence. preponderance purposefully First, must the defendant of the preponderance er, showing acting in privilege of himself of avail trial necessary unless is not evidence Second, the cause state. the forum hearing. evidentiary an conducts defendant’s from the arise action must at 1169. Greetings, 839 F.2d American acts of the Finally, the activities there. show- prima facie only make must by the consequences caused defendant or evidentiary bur- and that ing of substantial have a must slight.” Ibid. relatively “is den forum state with the enough connection jur- held district to make the constitutionally exer- be could not isdiction reasonable. the defendant the defendants’ in this because cised case In Mohasco Co. Southern Machine “ran- case were in this with Ohio contact dust., attenuated,” fortuitous, dom, accurately sum still statement Mohasco part of to meet the first failed therefore As we have area. marizes law The court found Mohasco test. occasions, “[pur many previous recruit purposely stated McCurry did PPC and In- position. the defendant fill the poseful availment Ohio resident re- in, causing a Floridа stead, conse used acting the defendants privilege of heard have qua would never cruiting ‘the sine firm and in, forum state is quence ” not sent a resume of Conti personam jurisdiction.’ non recruiter. (quoting Mo Theunissen, Further, 381-382). hasco, 401 that the Further, court held when arises reasonableness part inference of meet the second failed to plaintiffs met. the test are criteria of test, requires the first two the Mohasco met, there two criteria are arise from defendants’ Once first of action cause will fail fore, unusual forum state. The only the most activities *10 the test part of American that this recognized criterion also. court meet third action Theunissen, 1170; require that cause not F.2d at does Greetings, 839 the defendants’ formally arise from F.2d at 1461. nego- Management to Recruiters only thority of forum, requires but duct within confirming issuing let- with Conti tiate “a action have substantial that the cause PPC, its own and in Ohio. to Conti ters ac- in-state the defendants’ connection with in purposefully acted agent, through its 384, n. 27. Mohasco, tivities.” be that it would maintains Conti however, Ohio. held, it that district court therefore, and reasonable, subject to PPC rea- plaintiff could doubted “whether of the federal McCurry to the any representations sonably rely on in court Ohio. district regarding Recruiters by Management and wheth- financial condition Pneumatic’s the court addition, argues Conti that authorized Recruiters was Management er defendants ruled that “the it erred when on behalf of representations such to make plaintiff while directly contacted the never show, these are I First, As will Pneumatic.” him.” prior hiring to in Ohio he was conclu- type of substantive precisely arrange- travel directly coordinated PPC analysis jurisdictional prohibited sions the inter- to leave Ohio ments for Conti stage litigation. preliminary this them views, mailed purchased tickets and accept clearly pro- did mailed contract directly to light most favorable materials pleadings employment-related posals sev- were plaintiffs. directly to Ohio. There Conti confirming con- sent to Conti eral letters the dis- that persuasively argues Conti There also various proposals. were tract evidence consider the failed to trict court Further, Conti telephone discussions. plaintiff. light most favorable to first for the payroll on PPC’s district court that maintains Conti relationship. of their month exercising concluded it erred when Conti, the defen- sense, says In no over the defendants fortuitous, “random, at- contacts dants’ knowingly PPC would be unconstitutional. Rather, in Ohio the contacts tenuated.” Recruit- agent, Management authorized its to decision product of conscious were the give induce- ers, representations, to make go him induce Ohio and solicit Conti in negotiations ments, engage contrаct Manage- it contacted with Conti. When in addition argues also Finally, Conti Recruiters, that the com- PPC knew ment person- “specific” reasons to the above Florida for a outside of pany look arising the defendants jurisdiction over al PPC had position. fill the candidate to case, the in this of their activities out being so- knowledge that Conti was actual jurisdiction over “general" also had representa- and that certain licited Ohio regular and arising from the After the being made to him. tions were course of business systematic interviews, Recruit- used PPC apart Thus, that even maintains and to convey job proposals offer ers the defendants the Ohio-related acts employment con- negotiate details him, PPC has recruiting connection occurred negotiations tracts. These long- constant, well-established points in Ohio. Conti telephone There- to Ohio. standing commercial ties puts agent рrincipal who out that a about fore, nothing unfair there would be agent, ap- while position enables asserting defendants. authority, acting within his parently Corp., Equipment Hoover Recreation persons is sub- upon third commit a fraud 1989). (N.D.Ohio F.Supp. persons for the liability such third ject to argue The defendants Assur. Bankers fraud. American Life correctly determined Co., 677 F.2d Trust City Tri Bank & Co. v. not be exercised could that the Conti claims case. McCurry, re- president, that PPC’s fact when representation peated the fraudulent IV that he in Florida confirms Conti arrived Theunissen, we must view conduct Under the tortious and PPC intended light most favor- case in a pleadings in the au- consequences. PPC confirmed *11 availed agent, purposely through their considering the without to Conti able in conducting Ohio McCurry. business themselves of PPC and of troverting assertions soliciting sup- consistently Con- clearly and standard, by would the record this Given of services. ti’s constitutionаl port a the court under by the district analysis is court’s The district flawed The defendants’ statute. long-arm The by language. clearly its own revealed the surpass in Ohio with Conti contacts that the contacts held defendants other in state with forum contacts “random, for- of Ohio the state were with this court where cases addressed de- tuitous, because “the and attenuated” found was exercise of an Ohio purposely recruit not fendants did of requirements with consistent to be It is true position....” resident to fill A consideration Process Clause. the Due case that this level the fact on one that this establish will these cases one of rather than of Ohio a involves citizen point. simply PPC is fortuitous. another state Board Endodon v. American Lanier find Recruiters to Management asked Cir.1988), exam tics, specifi- not position; it did to afill someone who Michigan dentist ple, involved However, cally request an Ohio resident. Americаn certification sought Recruiters Management knew that PPC for an wrote She Endodontics. Board of Florida, but to its search not would confine in headquarters to the Board’s application to find states look to other also would application, Chicago, completed candidate. fee. required it back with then sent Chicago in lo- exam Recruiters Further, Management took a written she once Later failed Arizona. She test .in Recruiters Conti, an oral both cated in time it a second later test and took directed certainly purposefully oral and PPC filed again, she she Chicago. After failed is no There to Conti activity their Michigan and the suit sex discrimination after a candidate say that can that way we federal the case removed of the defendants located, the actions was juris found that court. that randomly directed at in this case were Michigan relevant under the dictiоn existed located The defendants candidate. and that the exercise statute long-arm and, quite purposefully him after and went would the Board personal jurisdiction case is effectively. This ultimately, quite that It is clear the constitution. not offend analogous to a directly situation Lanier of the defendant the contacts mail- it for offers product aof producer tenu Michigan were more state Cali- If someone sale nationwide. order How present case. those ous than say that it, might buy we fornia chooses under held be sufficient ever, they a citizen it was random sense one support personal Clause the Due Process than rather the product ordered California forty-nine one of the someone apparently case causes However, product The district if the states. analysis, for” type of “but Due purchaser, focused on California injury to the would events сontending that none jurisdic- prevent not would Process Clause his sent had not if happened have grounds certainly on the tion How- in Florida. the headhunter resume to the state conduct with the defendant’s “question ever, we held Lanier The district fortuitous. random inter- the business party solicited of which sense makes simply no conclusion court’s irrelevant, long as so face is case. given the facts forum its activities then directed logic is problematic court’s The district fact Id. resident.” by its statement further illustrated not have probably events defen- that the to conclude it is difficult his re- not sent if Conti had place taken consequences caused purposely dants irrele- Management Recruiters sume accept plaintiff inducing the McCurry, directly and PPC vant. *12 Michigan long-arm stat- under the not exist the employment because their offer of his to leave ute. already decided plaintiff had already acсepted in and had job distinguishable fairly easily is thus LAK Michigan at the time in job another offer today. facts us In from the before There- hired the defendants. was negotiations, in- case, significant instant did not fore, find that the defendants we persuasion led initial cluding all of the privi- themselves of purposely avail interviews, took for go to Florida Conti to consequence in causing lege acting or mailings through phone calls place Ohio, that this Court lacks LAK, entire In transac- over the defendant. state, only a of the place took out tion it. The argument is to state this refute To couple handled subse- few details allegation case is the point of this whole allegedly of the phone calls. None quent misrepre- the defendants’ fraudulent place in in LAK took conduct fraudulent revoke Conti to in Ohio caused sentations inap- is therefore calls. LAK phone those job Dynamics acceptаnce of the General his emphasized has This court posite. In position. of the PPC in favor Burger Supreme Court words of conse-
words,
cited the direct
the court has
King:
ac-
purposeful
of the defendants’
quence
may not be avoided
...
Jurisdiction
propo-
argument
an
in Ohio as
tions
the defendant did
merely because
pur-
act
did not
that the defendants
sition
Al-
the forum State.
physically enter
posefully Ohio.
frequently
presence
though territorial
accepted
is clear that
defendants
It
affil-
potential
defendant’s
will enhance
conducting
business
possibility of
reinforce the rea-
a State and
iation with
Re-
by Management
if the search
there,
forseeability
suit
it is
sonable
possible to
it
cruiters revealed
was
fact of modern commer-
inescapable
an
from Ohio.
attractive candidate
solicit
a substantial amount
cial life that
located,
defendants
Conti was
Once
solеly by
mail
is transacted
business
continuously di-
clearly, purposefully, and
lines,
across state
wire communications
activity
from the
their
toward Ohio
rected
pres-
obviating
physical
need for
thus
Conti,
contacts with
preliminary
time of
business is
ence within State
and un-
negotiation process,
throughout the
ac-
long as a commercial
So
conducted.
formally accepted and
til
contract
“purposefully
are
directed”
tor’s efforts
payroll.
on PPC’s
Conti was
State, [physi-
another
residents of
toward
any
further
The defendants
claim
dispositive].
is not
cal absence
into Ohio were not sufficient
made
calls
(quoting Burger
Lanier,
at 907
cite
The
support jurisdiction.
2184).
476,
tional
V summary sum, I would reverse court be- granted by the district judgment WASHINGTON, Jacqueline light in a most cause, construing facts Plaintiff-Appellee, amade plaintiff, Conti has favorable showing specific prima facie McCurry pur- Thomas; have PPC and NEWSOM; Phillips; J. R. L. may caused have Southfield; posely acted the Southfield City actions. of those Defendants-Appel- as a injury to Conti result Department, Police us, an exercise record before Given lants. No. 91-2355. therefore, and, consti- reasonable would be Appeals, Court States United tutional. Sixth Circuit. not conduct court did The district Aug. 1992. Argued pre- given the analysis jurisdictional proper That proceedings. stage of these liminary 15, 1992. Oct. Decided facts this not construe court did Rehearing En Banc Rehearing and without to Conti light most favorable Dec. Denied contrary assertions considering the had this I fear that defendants. As a result same mistake. court on out of thrown