MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this civil rights action, plaintiff, appearing pro se, alleges that he was denied admission to the University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Law, that the school did not comply with its admission policy and that the school engaged in arbitrary and capricious admission standards and policies. This matter is presently before the court on defendant The Curators of the University of Missouri’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction (doc. # 21) and plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction (doc. #26). As set forth in more detаil below, defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied, but the court transfers plaintiffs case, along with his pending motion for a preliminary injunction, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
I. Background
Plaintiff is a Kansas resident who applied for admission to the Law School at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, a public university located in the State of Missouri. In that regard, plaintiff mailed his application materials and sent various letters and electronic mail (e-mail) messages concerning his application to the Law School from his residence in Kansas. Plaintiff also visited the Law School on occasion to inquire about the status of his application. It is undisputed that no one from the Law School ever traveled to Kansas to communicate with plaintiff. It is further undisputed that no one from the Law School ever recruited plaintiff or otherwise encouraged him to apply for admission. In fact, the only “contacts” that the Law School had with the State of Kansas with respect to plaintiff consisted of re
Specifically, on January 19, 2001, Jean Klosterman, the Director of Admissions for the Law School, sent an e-mail message to plaintiff at his home in Kansas advising plaintiff that his request to use a 1987 Law School Admission Test (LSAT) score was “brought before the Admissions Committee” and that the “use of the 14-year old LSAT score was not approved by the Committee.” The e-mail further advised plaintiff that he would need to retake the LSAT before his applicatiоn would be reviewed and considered for the Fall 2001 entering class. Plaintiffs complaint also references one telephone conversation that plaintiff had with Ms. Klosterman concerning admissions criteria. While plaintiffs complaint is silent on the issue, the court presumes that plaintiff was at his residence in Kansas during the phone conversation. Nothing in plaintiffs complaint or in the record reflects who initiated this phone call. Finally, on May 30, 2001, Matt Davis, Assistant Dean at the Law School, sent a letter to plaintiff at his home in Kansas advising plaintiff that he had been placed on the “Waiting List” for the Fall 2001 entering class.
The Law School’s “general” contacts with the State of Kansas are also limited. It is undisputed, for example, that The Curators do not have an office in Kansas and do not have a registered agent for service of process in Kansas. By affidavit of defendant’s General Counsel, it appears that the Law School “does make information about the Law School available to students at colleges and universities in the State of Kansas and does respond to inquiries from Kansas residents, but does not engage in mass mailings to all the college graduates living in Kansas.” Plaintiff points to the Law School catalog as evidence that the school draws heavily from and reaches out to the metropolitan area, including Kansas, and that the school operates on a national basis, not just within the borders of Missouri. Specifically, plaintiff highlights the following passages from the Law School catalog, found in a section entitled “Message from the Dean”:
Frankly, with more than 500 students (including J.D., LL.M. and “Flex” students), 4000-plus graduates throughout the Metroplex alone, and other alumni and alumnae spread from D.C. to California and Alaska to Florida, there should be little wonder that we are widely disbursed, but even more widely connected.
We start with the fact that we are one of the few public law schools located in the hub-city of a metropolitan region where no other law schools exist.
‡ ‡ H: ❖ # #
Not surprisingly, it is from here-across this Metroplex-that our laws, commerce, finances, and social, political and civic transactions will increasingly affect the lives of people across throughout [sic] the Metroplex, The State, and the Nation.
Plaintiff also points out references in the catalog to “virtual offices” and highlights the Law School’s website as evidence that the school оperates beyond the Missouri state lines. Finally, plaintiff contends (and the school does not dispute) that the school employs Kansas residents and admits students from a variety of states, including Kansas.
II. Discussion
Defendant argues that plaintiffs action must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The party bringing the action bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Kuenzle v. HTM Sport-Und Freizeitgerate AG,
102
Before a federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a federal question case such as this one, “the court must determine (1) whether the applicable statute potentially confers jurisdiction by authorizing service of process on the defendant and (2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.”
Peay v. BellSouth Med. Assistance Plan,
The Due Process Clause permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant so long as the defendant purposefully established “minimum contacts” with the forum state.
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
1. General Jurisdiction
The court first addresses whether the assertion of general jurisdiction over defendant is warranted because of any contacts defendant has had with Kansas that are unrelated to plaintiffs cause of action. As discussed above, а nonresident defendant may be subject to a state’s jurisdiction even when the alleged injury is not related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state as long as the unrelated contacts are continuous and systematic enough “that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in that forum.” Trierweiler
v. Croxton & Trench Holding Corp.,
As an initial matter, plaintiff has directed the court to no case in which a university from a nonforum state has been held subject to the general jurisdiction of a forum state and, in fact, every case which the court has uncovered holds directly to the contrary.
See Gehling v. St. George’s Sch. of Medicine, Ltd.,
In
Gehling,
for example, the Third Circuit held that St. George’s School of Medicine, a Caribbean institution, did not have a sufficient nexus to Pennsylvania to subject the school to general jurisdiction despite the fact that St. George’s advertised in national newspapers that circulated in Pennsylvania; counted Pennsylvania residents among its student body; sent school representatives to Philadelphia as part of a “media swing” intended to raise St. George’s profile; and entered into an agreement with a Pennsylvania college to establish a joint international program combining pre-medical studies in Pennsylvania with medical training in Grenada.
[T]he fact that some of St. George’s students are Pennsylvania residents does not signify a relevant business contact. Advanced educational institutions typically draw their student body from numerous states, and appellants’ theory would subject them to suit on non-forum related claims in every state where a member of the student body resides. Thus, the fact that residents of the state apply and are accepted for admission to St. George’s is of no moment. For the same reasоn, the fact that St. George’s may be said to derive some percentage of its revenue from Pennsylvania residents in return for services provided in Grenada does not subject it to in per-sonam jurisdiction.
Id. at 542-43 (citations omitted).
Following the Third Circuit’s lead, other courts analyzing analogous cases have held that an out-of-state school is not subject to general jurisdiction simply because it may draw students from the forum state, receive revenue from the forum state through tuition or fundraising activities, or have contacts with alumnaе in the forum state.
See, e.g., Gallant,
For the reasons set forth in
Gehling
and the cases following
Gehling,
the court concludes that the Law School’s general references to the “metroplex,” the admission of students from Kansas, and the making available of information are not sufficiently “continuous and systematic” contacts to make the Law School susceptible to every sort of claim that might be filed in Kansas, including those unrelated to the specific transaction in this case. Similarly, the mere fact that the Law School employs Kansas residents is not sufficient to confer general jurisdiction.
See Gallant,
In summary, the contacts upon which plaintiff relies to support the exercise of general jurisdiction are simply insufficient to demonstrate that the Law School’s business contacts with this forum are “continuous and systematic.” To hold otherwise would render the Law School and any similar institution subject to general jurisdiction in most, if not all, states.
See Gallant,
2. Specific Jurisdiction
Having concluded that the Law School is not subject to general personal jurisdiction in Kansas, the court turns to address whether it may exercise specific jurisdiction over the Law School. In resolving this issue, the court analyzes whether defendant has “purposefully directed” its activities toward Kansas and whether the litigation results from alleged injuries that arisе out of or relate to those activities.
See Kuenzle v. HTM SportUnd Freizeitgerate AG,
As it did in connection with its discussion of general jurisdiction, the court begins with the Third Circuit’s decision in
Gehling
where the court, after analyzing contacts less tenuous than those present here, declined to find that St. George’s medical college had purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting within Pennsylvania. In
Gehling,
the record reflected thаt the appellants’ decedent applied from Pennsylvania for admission to St. George’s, that this application was accepted in Grenada, that St. George’s sent mail into Pennsylvania advising the prospective student of his acceptance and of other information concerning matriculation, and that appellants’ decedent responded by mailing the requested tuition from Pennsylvania.
Indeed, the court has uncovered only a handful of cases in which the trial court exercised specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state college or university and each of these cases involved some level of active solicitation or reсruitment by the college or university with respect to the individual plaintiff. As the Missouri Court of Appeals recognized in
Davis v. Baylor University,
“courts are more prone to find that recruitment contacts justify the assertion of specific personal jurisdiction when the recruitment process involves the physical presence of the defendant’s agents in the forum state, as opposed to contact by mail or phone.”
In conclusion, the court concludes that its exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant with respect to plaintiffs case would violate the requirements of due process. Accordingly, the court denies defеndant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint, but transfers plaintiffs case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint (doc. # 21) is denied; but plaintiffs case is transferred, along with plaintiffs pending motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. # 26) and any other motions pending as of the date of this order, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Notes
. As an initial matter, plaintiff contends that personal jurisdiction has been establishеd because defendant has been served with a summons. In support of his argument, plaintiff directs the court to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(l). Plaintiff, however, has failed to read Rule 4(k)(l) in its entirety. When read in its entirety, it is clear that "service of a summons ... is effective to establish jurisdiction over the person of a defendant” only in certain circumstances enumerated in subsections (A) through (D), none of which apply here.
Plaintiff also argues that personal jurisdiction is appropriatе by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and/or 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 2000a-6 and 2000c-8. Section 1331, however, addresses the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts {i.e., the types of cases that federal courts can hear, like cases involving "federal questions” under section 1331), not personal jurisdiction over a particular defendant. Similarly, the other statutes referenced by plaintiff simply authorize federal courts to hear cases involving claims under those statutes because those kinds of claims involve questions of fedеral law. In other words, these statutes deal with subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. In that regard, it is undisputed that the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims in this case because the subject matter of plaintiff’s lawsuit is based on a "federal question.” The question raised by defendant's motion, however, is whether this particular federal court is authorized to hear plaintiff’s case in light of the nature and extent of defendant’s contacts with the forum state {i.e., personal jurisdiction).
. Section 1631 states, in relevant part, as follows:
Whenever а civil action is filed in a court ... or an appeal ... is noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on thе date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred.
28 U.S.C. §1631.
. The Third Circuit’s decision in this regard applied only to the appellants' claims for negligence and breach of contract.
See