Asiarim Corp. v. Hovers

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 28, 2015
• Docket: 65453
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

consequences in the forum state of the defendant's activities, and [3] those activities, or the consequences thereof, must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. Consipio Holding, BV v. Carlberg, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 43, 282 P.3d 751, 755 (2012) (quotation omitted). With regard to Joannes Hovers and Eugene Van Os, we conclude that the district court correctly found that Asiarim satisfied the first two prongs of the specific personal jurisdiction test. See id. at 755 (concluding that a plaintiff satisfies the first two prongs of the specific personal jurisdiction test by alleging that an out-of-state officer or director intentionally harmed a Nevada corporation). However, as to the third prong—reasonableness—we conclude that the district court erred in finding that exercising personal jurisdiction over Hovers and Van Os would be unreasonable without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Given the complexities of this case, and Hovers' and Van Os' connection to Asiarim, an evidentiary hearing is necessary for the district court to adequately analyze the reasonableness factors set forth in Consipio. Id. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order and remand this case for jurisdictional discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding the reasonableness of the district court exercising personal jurisdiction over Hovers and Van Os. With regard to Albertus Ebben and Jan Hoogstrate, we conclude that the district court correctly found that Asiarim did not satisfy the first two prongs of the specific personal jurisdiction test. See Walden v. Fiore„ U.S. 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122, 1125 (2014) (concluding that causing an "injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 10) 1947A <610) connection to the forum," and "the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum") Thus, the district court did not err in granting Ebben's and Hoogstrate's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.' Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent wAth_this order.

J.

Gibbons

J. Pickering

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Law Offices of Anthony D. Guenther, Esq. Fennemore Craig Jones Vargas/Reno Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd./Reno Eighth District Court Clerk

'We have considered the parties remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ea)