(
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-17-98 ARGO MARKETING GROUP, INC., ) ) Plaintiff ) OCT 3 '17 AMl0:33 ) ANDRO SUPERIOR COURl V. ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT CATALINA SENA ) HEALTH LINE MARKETING, ) LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS and ) ) HEALTH LINE MARKETING, LLC, ) ) Defendants. )
Before the Court is Defendant Health Line Marketing, LLC' s ("Health Line")
motion to dismiss pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b )(2). Plaintiff Argo
Marketing Group, Inc. (" Argo") objects.
I. Background
On or about April 12, 2016, Argo, a Maine corporation, and Health Line, a Florida
corporation, entered into an agreement whereby Argo would perform certain
telemarketing and customer services for Health Line's products. (Pl.'s Compl. <[ 4.) Argo
filed a complaint dated May 17, 2017 alleging the sum of $79,465.21 is due and owing
from Health Line under the agreement and that, despite demand, Health Line has failed
to pay these outstanding invoices. (PL's Compl.
Defendant Catalina Sena guaranteed the payment of all sums due to Argo from Health
Line and that Defendant Sena has likewise failed to pay the amount due. (PL's Compl.
<[
this motion, alleging the State of Maine does not have personal jurisdiction over Health
Line because Argo's complaint does not allege any actions between the parties occurred
in Maine, that Argo sold any of Health Line's products in Maine, or that Health Line
1 of 5 ('
otherwise transacts any business in Maine. (Mot. Dismiss 1-2.) On August 15, 2017, Argo
filed an objection to this motion and attached the affidavit of Nicole Morgan, the Director
of Client Services for Argo. In her affidavit, Morgan states that a representative of Health
Line reached out to Argo's Director of Business Development to discuss and finalize the
agreement made the basis of this lawsuit. (Morgan Aff. <[
services rendered by Argo to Health Line were made by wire to Argo's bank in Maine,
all communications from Health Line to Argo were directed to Argo's offices in Maine,
and the underlying agreement states the contractual relationship between the parties will
be governed by the laws of the State of Maine. (Morgan Aff. 'lI'lI 9-11.)
II. Discussion
"The proper exercise of personal jurisdiction in a Maine court hinges on the
satisfaction of two requirements: first, that the Maine Long-Arm Statute ... confers
personal jurisdiction on the court; and second, that the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant
to the long-arm statute complies with constitutional due process requirements." Jackson
v. Weaver, 678 A.2d 1036, 1038 (Me. 1996). Maine's long-arm jurisdiction statute, 14 M.R.S.
§ 704-A(l), provides that "[t]his section, to insure maximum protection to citizens of this
State, shall be applied so as to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the
fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution, 14th
amendment." The statute further states, in relevant part:
Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated in this section, thereby submits such person ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts:
A. The transaction of any business within this State;
F. Contracting to supply services or things within this State .. ..
2 of 5 ( (
14 M.R.S. § 704-A(2). Without question, Health Line subjected itself to Maine's long-arm
jurisdiction by transacting business within this state and by contracting with Argo to
provide services within this state.
In addition to satisfying the long-arm statute, in order for the state of Maine to
exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, the exercise of jurisdiction must
comport with the Due Process clauses of the Maine Constitution, Me. Const. art. I,§ 6-A,
and the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Maine courts have
developed a three-prong test to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction
over a non-resident defendant is consistent with the requirements of due process. This
test requires that: 1) Maine has a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the
controversy; 2) the defendant, by its conduct, should reasonably have anticipated
litigating in Maine; and 3) the exercise of jurisdiction by Maine's courts comports with
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24,
(Me. 1993). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper under
the first two prongs of the test based on specific facts in the record. Cavers v. Houston
McLane Co., 2008 ME 164,
show that jurisdiction is improper under the third prong. See id. "The record must be
construed in the manner most favorable to the party asserting jurisdiction." Id.
As to the first prong, Maine has an interest in providing its citizens with a means
of redress against non-residents. Interstate Food Processing Corp., 622 A.2d at 1192.
Furthermore, Maine has an interest in regulating non-resident "parties who 'reach out
beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of"'
Maine. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473 (1985); see Electronic Media Int'l v.
3 of 5 (
Pioneer Commc'ns of Am., Inc., 586 A.2d 1256, 1259 (Me. 1991). In this case, a representative
of Health Line reached out to a representative of Argo to negotiate and contract for
services that were provided entirely within the state of Maine. Because Health Line
reached out to a Maine corporation to create this contractual relationship, thereby
incurring continuing obligations to Maine citizens, Maine has a legitimate interest in the
subject matter of this controversy.
Regarding the second prong, for a foreign corporation to be subject to Maine's
jurisdiction, the corporation must have sufficient conta~ts with Maine to make it
reasonable to require the corporation to defend the suit here. Interstate Food Processing
Corp., 622 A.2d at 1192. The defendant's contacts may not result solely from the unilateral
activity of the plaintiff; rather, the defendant must purposefully avail itself of "the
privilege of conducting activities within [Maine], thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws." Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474-75; Interstate Food Processing
Corp., 622 A.2d at 1192. This requirement is met when a defendant purposefully directs
his activities at Maine residents by deliberately engaging in significant activities in Maine
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-17-98 ARGO MARKETING GROUP, INC., ) ) Plaintiff ) OCT 3 '17 AMl0:33 ) ANDRO SUPERIOR COURl V. ) ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT CATALINA SENA ) HEALTH LINE MARKETING, ) LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS and ) ) HEALTH LINE MARKETING, LLC, ) ) Defendants. )
Before the Court is Defendant Health Line Marketing, LLC' s ("Health Line")
motion to dismiss pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b )(2). Plaintiff Argo
Marketing Group, Inc. (" Argo") objects.
I. Background
On or about April 12, 2016, Argo, a Maine corporation, and Health Line, a Florida
corporation, entered into an agreement whereby Argo would perform certain
telemarketing and customer services for Health Line's products. (Pl.'s Compl. <[ 4.) Argo
filed a complaint dated May 17, 2017 alleging the sum of $79,465.21 is due and owing
from Health Line under the agreement and that, despite demand, Health Line has failed
to pay these outstanding invoices. (PL's Compl.
Defendant Catalina Sena guaranteed the payment of all sums due to Argo from Health
Line and that Defendant Sena has likewise failed to pay the amount due. (PL's Compl.
<[
this motion, alleging the State of Maine does not have personal jurisdiction over Health
Line because Argo's complaint does not allege any actions between the parties occurred
in Maine, that Argo sold any of Health Line's products in Maine, or that Health Line
1 of 5 ('
otherwise transacts any business in Maine. (Mot. Dismiss 1-2.) On August 15, 2017, Argo
filed an objection to this motion and attached the affidavit of Nicole Morgan, the Director
of Client Services for Argo. In her affidavit, Morgan states that a representative of Health
Line reached out to Argo's Director of Business Development to discuss and finalize the
agreement made the basis of this lawsuit. (Morgan Aff. <[
services rendered by Argo to Health Line were made by wire to Argo's bank in Maine,
all communications from Health Line to Argo were directed to Argo's offices in Maine,
and the underlying agreement states the contractual relationship between the parties will
be governed by the laws of the State of Maine. (Morgan Aff. 'lI'lI 9-11.)
II. Discussion
"The proper exercise of personal jurisdiction in a Maine court hinges on the
satisfaction of two requirements: first, that the Maine Long-Arm Statute ... confers
personal jurisdiction on the court; and second, that the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant
to the long-arm statute complies with constitutional due process requirements." Jackson
v. Weaver, 678 A.2d 1036, 1038 (Me. 1996). Maine's long-arm jurisdiction statute, 14 M.R.S.
§ 704-A(l), provides that "[t]his section, to insure maximum protection to citizens of this
State, shall be applied so as to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the
fullest extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution, 14th
amendment." The statute further states, in relevant part:
Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this State, who in person or through an agent does any of the acts hereinafter enumerated in this section, thereby submits such person ... to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State as to any cause of action arising from the doing of any of such acts:
A. The transaction of any business within this State;
F. Contracting to supply services or things within this State .. ..
2 of 5 ( (
14 M.R.S. § 704-A(2). Without question, Health Line subjected itself to Maine's long-arm
jurisdiction by transacting business within this state and by contracting with Argo to
provide services within this state.
In addition to satisfying the long-arm statute, in order for the state of Maine to
exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, the exercise of jurisdiction must
comport with the Due Process clauses of the Maine Constitution, Me. Const. art. I,§ 6-A,
and the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Maine courts have
developed a three-prong test to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction
over a non-resident defendant is consistent with the requirements of due process. This
test requires that: 1) Maine has a legitimate interest in the subject matter of the
controversy; 2) the defendant, by its conduct, should reasonably have anticipated
litigating in Maine; and 3) the exercise of jurisdiction by Maine's courts comports with
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Estate of Hoch v. Stifel, 2011 ME 24,
(Me. 1993). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper under
the first two prongs of the test based on specific facts in the record. Cavers v. Houston
McLane Co., 2008 ME 164,
show that jurisdiction is improper under the third prong. See id. "The record must be
construed in the manner most favorable to the party asserting jurisdiction." Id.
As to the first prong, Maine has an interest in providing its citizens with a means
of redress against non-residents. Interstate Food Processing Corp., 622 A.2d at 1192.
Furthermore, Maine has an interest in regulating non-resident "parties who 'reach out
beyond one state and create continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of"'
Maine. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473 (1985); see Electronic Media Int'l v.
3 of 5 (
Pioneer Commc'ns of Am., Inc., 586 A.2d 1256, 1259 (Me. 1991). In this case, a representative
of Health Line reached out to a representative of Argo to negotiate and contract for
services that were provided entirely within the state of Maine. Because Health Line
reached out to a Maine corporation to create this contractual relationship, thereby
incurring continuing obligations to Maine citizens, Maine has a legitimate interest in the
subject matter of this controversy.
Regarding the second prong, for a foreign corporation to be subject to Maine's
jurisdiction, the corporation must have sufficient conta~ts with Maine to make it
reasonable to require the corporation to defend the suit here. Interstate Food Processing
Corp., 622 A.2d at 1192. The defendant's contacts may not result solely from the unilateral
activity of the plaintiff; rather, the defendant must purposefully avail itself of "the
privilege of conducting activities within [Maine], thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws." Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474-75; Interstate Food Processing
Corp., 622 A.2d at 1192. This requirement is met when a defendant purposefully directs
his activities at Maine residents by deliberately engaging in significant activities in Maine
or by creating continuing obligations between himself and Maine residents. Hoch, 2011
ME 24,
reaching out to Argo to establish a business relationship under a contract which was fully
performed in this state, Health Line, through its own conduct, created meaningful
contacts with Maine residents and purposefully availed itself of the privilege of
conducting business in Maine. Health Line compensated Argo for its services by wiring
payment to a bank in Maine, and all communications from Health Line to Argo were
directed to Argo representatives in Maine. Further establishing that Health Line
purposefully availed itself of the laws and protections of the state of Maine, the choice of
law provision in its contract with Argo specifically provides that the agreement is
4 of 5 governed by Maine law. Health Line's conduct in negotiating, entering into, and carrying
out its contract with Argo establish that it should have reasonably anticipated litigating
in Maine.
As to the third prong, Health Line has not met its burden of demonstrating that
the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them in Maine does not comport with traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice. "'This analysis requires consideration of a
variety of factors including the nature and purpose of defendant's contacts with [Maine],
the connection between the contacts and the cause of action, the number of contacts, the
interest of [Maine] in the controversy, and the convenience and fairness to both parties."'
Hoch, 2011 ME 24,
Health Line has not put forth any argument that Maine's exercise of personal jurisdiction
over them would be unfair or unjust.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds it may exercise personal jurisdiction
over Health Line in this matter, and thus there is no basis to dismiss Argo's complaint
under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b )(2). The Court DENIES Defendant Health Line
Marketing, LLC's motion to dismiss. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this Order into
the docket by reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil 7 ure 79(a).
Dated: 1oj.,jr2 ~~~~~_,..___
5 of 5 ARGO MARKETING GROUP INC - PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT ANDROSCOGGIN, ss. Attorney for: ARGO MARKETING GROUP INC Docket No AUBSC-CV-2017-00098 JOHN D CLIFFORD IV - RETAINED CLIFFORD & GOLDEN PA 5 MAPLE STREET DOCKET RECORD PO BOX 368 LISBON FALLS ME 04252
vs HEALTH LINE MARKETING LLC - DEFENDANT
Attorney for: HEALTH LINE MARKETING LLC JAMES E BELLEAU - LIMITED 07/26/2017 TRAFTON MATZEN BELLEAU & FRENETTE TEN MINOT AVENUE PO BOX 470 AUBURN ME 04212
CATALINA SENA - DEFENDANT
Attorney for: CATALINA SENA JAMES E BELLEAU - RETAINED 07/26/2017 TRAFTON MATZEN BELLEAU & FRENETTE TEN MINOT AVENUE PO BOX 470 AUBURN ME 04212
Filing Document: COMPLAINT Minor Case Type: CONTRACT Filing Date: 07/25/2017
Docket Events: 07/25/2017 FILING DOCUMENT - COMPLAINT FILED ON 07/25/2017
07/25/2017 Party(s): ARGO MARKETING GROUP INC ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 07/25/2017 Plaintiff's Attorney: JOHN D CLIFFORD IV
07/25/2017 Party(s): HEALTH LINE MARKETING LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS SERVED ON 06/07/2017 HEALTH LINE MARKETING THROUGH ALYSSA ROBERT
07/25/2017 Party(s): HEALTH LINE MARKETING LLC SUMMONS/SERVICE - CIVIL SUMMONS FILED ON 07/25/2017
07/27/2017 Party(s): CATALINA SENA RESPONSIVE PLEADING - ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FILED ON 07/26/2017 CATALINA SENA
07/27/2017 Party(s): HEALTH LINE MARKETING LLC MOTION - MOTION TO DISMISS FILED ON 07/26/2017 AS TO DEFENDANT HEALTH LINE MARKETING WITH PROPOSED ORDER
07/27/2017 Party(s): HEALTH LINE MARKETING LLC Page 1 of 2 Printed on: 10/03/2017