Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co. Inc. v. E.M. Pizza, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Nebraska

February 12, 2019

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company. Inc., an Iowa corporation, appellant,
v.
E.M. Pizza, Inc., a California corporation, appellee.

         1. Jurisdiction: Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings: Appeal and Error. When reviewing an order dismissing a party from a case for lack of personal jurisdiction under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(2), an appellate court examines the question of whether the nonmoving party has established a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction de novo.

         2. Motions to Dismiss: Appeal and Error. In reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, an appellate court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of that party.

         3. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. When determining whether a court has personal jurisdiction over a party, it must first determine whether a state's long-arm statute is satisfied, and if the long-arm statute is satisfied, whether minimum contacts exist between the defendant and the forum state for personal jurisdiction over the defendant without offending due process.

         4. Constitutional Law: Jurisdiction: States. Nebraska's long-arm statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2016), provides that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who has any contact with or maintains any relation to this state to afford a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

         5. Due Process: Jurisdiction: States. The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.

         6. ___: ___: ___. Due process is satisfied where the nonresident defendant's minimum contacts are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.

         [26 Neb.App. 907] 7. Jurisdiction: States. A court exercises two types of personal jurisdiction depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case: general personal jurisdiction and specific personal jurisdiction.

         8. ___: ___. A court has general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant has engaged in continuous and systematic business connections with the forum state.

         9. ___: ___. Specific personal jurisdiction arises where the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum state are neither continuous nor systematic, but the plaintiff's claim arises from the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum.

         10.___: ___. If a court determines that a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state, the court must then weigh the facts of the case to determine whether exercising personal jurisdiction would comport with fair play and substantial justice.

         11. ___: ___. When determining whether exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant would be fair and reasonable, a court may consider the burden on the defendant, the interest of the forum state, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief, the judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.

         12. Jurisdiction: States: Contracts. Where a choice-of-forum clause is a necessary component of the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction, then the court would have no jurisdiction but for the fact that the parties have consented to its exercise by the choice-of-forum agreement, and the standards contained in the Model Uniform Choice of Forum Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-413 et seq. (Reissue 2016), apply.

         13. Jurisdiction: States. A plaintiff's choice of a forum should not be overturned except for weighty reasons, and only when trial in the chosen forum would establish oppressiveness and vexation to the defendant out of all proportion to the plaintiff's convenience, or when the forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems.

         14. ___: ___. In determining whether a state is a reasonably convenient place for the trial of an action under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-414(1)(b) (Reissue 2016), courts are required to consider both private and public interest factors.

         15. Appeal and Error. Errors must be both assigned and argued to be addressed by an appellate court.

          Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Duane C. Dougherty, Judge. Affirmed.

         [26 Neb.App. 908] Jeffrey A. Silver for appellant.

          Kristopher J. Covi, of McGrath, North, Mullin & Kratz, PC, L.L.O., for appellee.

          Moore, Chief Judge, and Riedmann and Welch, Judges.

          RIEDMANN, JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This appeal requires us to determine whether an Iowa corporation made a prima facie case to establish that the Nebraska courts have personal jurisdiction over a California corporation under either Nebraska's long-arm statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-536 (Reissue 2016), or the Model Uniform Choice of Forum Act (Choice of Forum Act), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-413 et seq. (Reissue 2016). The district court for Douglas County ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.