Adams et al v. Richardson Design Partnership LLC et al, No. 2:2008cv01382 - Document 21 (D. Nev. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 15 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 6/29/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AXM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adams et al v. Richardson Design Partnership LLC et al Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 WES ADAMS, an individual; BEAVER DAM ) FARMS, LLC, a Nevada limited-liability ) company, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARDSON DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, ) LLC, a Utah limited-liability company; NEIL ) RICHARDSON, an agent of RICHARDSON ) DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLC and in his ) individual capacity; ROCHESTER & ) ASSOCIATES, INC., a Georgia domestic profit ) corporation; DOES I–X, inclusive; and ROE ) CORPORATIONS 1–10, inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No.: 2:08-cv-01382-RLH-PAL ORDER (Motion to Dismiss–#15) 21 22 Before the Court is specially appearing Defendants Richardson Design Partnership, 23 LLC, Neil Richardson, and Rochester & Associates, Inc.’s Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 24 Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (#15), filed February 11, 2009. The Court has also considered 25 Plaintiffs Wes Adams and Beaver Dam Farms, LLC’s Opposition (#18), filed March 25, 2009, and 26 Defendants’ Reply (#19), filed April 8, 2009. AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 BACKGROUND Plaintiff Wes Adams is a resident of Clark County, Nevada, and has significant real 3 estate holdings in the United States and abroad. Defendant Neil Richardson is a resident of Salt 4 Lake City, Utah, and the managing member of Defendant Richardson Design Partnership, LLC, 5 (“RDP”) a Utah limited-liability company. Adams and Richardson met in 2005 through a mutual 6 business acquaintance. The acquaintance arranged for Richardson to come to Adams’s office in 7 Las Vegas to present a business proposal relating to a development project in the Bahamas. 8 Following Richardson’s presentation, the two flew to the Bahamas and toured the project together. 9 While Adams eventually declined to go forward with the project, that was not the end of their 10 business dealings. 11 Following their trip to the Bahamas, Richardson began actively soliciting Adams 12 for work and requesting Adams participation in several real estate projects. Richardson proposed 13 that his company review each of the properties owned by Adams and create a development plan. 14 Adams consented. Richardson flew to Las Vegas, and the two traveled together to Adams’s 15 properties in Colorado, Georgia, Mexico, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah. Richardson also 16 flew with Adams to Santa Fe, New Mexico to analyze the potential purchase of another property. 17 Following their trip to Santa Fe, the two returned to Adams’s Las Vegas office to discuss what 18 actions they should take with regard to the property. Richardson also flew to Las Vegas several 19 times to discuss a resort property in Mexico that Adams was involved with and to find out how 20 RDP could help with the development. He also traveled to Las Vegas to discuss with Adams 21 potential projects in Oklahoma and Colorado and to offer Adams’ company a time-management 22 software system. 23 Richardson’s efforts were at least partially successful. His company performed 24 design work for Adams’ properties in Reno, Nevada, and New Harmony, Utah. Richardson had 25 solicited this work on behalf of RDP in Las Vegas, and Richardson attended numerous meetings in 26 Adams’s Las Vegas office regarding these projects. AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 2 1 Richardson also successfully solicited Adams’s involvement in at least two real 2 estate development projects. The first involved a property in Connecticut called Elm Court. 3 Richardson asked Adams to invest $325,000, and promised him that he would not lose any money 4 on the deal. Adams claims he invested based on Richardson’s guarantee, but to date, has not 5 received any return on his investment. 6 The second project involved a property Adams owns in Athens, Georgia known as 7 Beaver Dam Farms. Richardson promised Adams that he would secure a $20,000,000 loan to 8 develop the property, with $10,000,000 of that loan being used to pay Adams for the property. In 9 order to begin development, Richardson asked Adams to front $250,000. Richardson promised to 10 pay back this money once he had obtained the loan. Adams agreed to put up the money, but 11 conditioned his participation in the project on Richardson’s securing the loan. As with their other 12 ventures, Richardson traveled several times to Las Vegas to meet with Adams concerning this 13 project. Following their agreement, RDP hired Defendant Rochester & Associates, Inc. (“R&A”) 14 to perform work on the Georgia property. Richardson, however, never secured the $20,000,000 15 loan and R&A was never paid. Adams claims he never agreed to the work being performed before 16 Richardson obtained the loan. R&A later filed a lien against the property. 17 Adams and his company Beaver Dam Farms, LLC filed this action on October 13, 18 2008, asserting four claims for fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good 19 faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations arising out of 20 the Elm Court and Beaver Dam Farms projects. Defendant Richardson later filed a lawsuit in 21 Georgia based on the Beaver Dam Farms project. Defendants Richardson, RDP, and R&A now 22 appear specially and request to be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of 23 Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). For the reasons discussed below, this Motion is denied. 24 // 25 // 26 // AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 3 1 2 DISCUSSION I. 3 Motion to Dismiss A court may dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over 4 the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court 5 has personal jurisdiction over each defendant. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 6 (9th Cir. 2006). In the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff must make a prima facie 7 showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat a 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss. Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 8 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). To make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, “the plaintiff need only 9 demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. The plaintiff’s 10 allegations “may not be merely conclusory, but must assert particular jurisdictional facts which 11 establish the necessary ties between the defendant and the forum state.” Pocahontas First Corp. v. 12 Venture Planning Group, 572 F. Supp. 503, 506 (D. Nev. 1983). Moreover, a court resolves 13 conflicts in the parties’ affidavits in favor of the non-moving party. Holland Am. Line Inc. v. 14 Wärtsilä N. Am., 485 F.3d 450, 457 n.5 (9th Cir. 2007). However, for purposes of personal 15 jurisdiction, a court “may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted 16 by affidavit.” Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977). 17 II. Personal Jurisdiction 18 Defendants argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them because they 19 do not have sufficient contacts with Nevada. In addressing this assertion, the Court notes the long- 20 standing rule that in order to establish personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show (1) that the 21 forum state’s long-arm statute confers jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant; and (2) that the 22 exercise of jurisdiction does not violate federal constitutional principals of due process. Haisten v. 23 Grass Valley Med. Reimbursement Fund, 784 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir. 1986). Nevada’s long-arm 24 statute authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by due 25 process. Baker v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 999 P.2d 1020, 1023 (Nev. 2000). Consequently, the 26 analysis regarding Nevada’s long-arm statute and federal due process are the same. See id. AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 4 1 There are two types of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. In order to 2 exercise specific jurisdiction, (1) the defendant must have done some act by which he purposefully 3 avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits 4 and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must arise out of the defendant’s forum-related activities; 5 and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. See, e.g., Gray & Co. v. Firstenberg Mach. 6 Co., 913 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff bears the burden of the satisfying the first two 7 prongs of this test. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 If the plaintiff satisfies these two requirements, the burden shifts to the defendants to show that the 9 exercise of personal jurisdiction is unreasonable. Id. 10 Here, the Court has little difficulty concluding that it has personal jurisdiction over 11 Defendants Richardson and his company RDP. First, Richardson and RDP purposefully availed 12 themselves of the privilege of conducting business activities in Nevada when Richardson traveled 13 to Las Vegas several times to solicit business from Adams. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs submit 14 the affidavit of Wes Adams, in which he states that Richardson traveled to his Las Vegas office on 15 at least forty separate occasions to solicit work for RDP with regards to Adams’s properties and to 16 offer to install and administer a software system. Second, Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of two deals 17 that were arranged, at least in part, at Adams’s Las Vegas office. Finally, Richardson and RDP 18 have not submitted any evidence to convince the Court that the exercise of personal jurisdiction 19 over them would be unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion with respect 20 to Richardson and RDP. 21 With regards to Defendant R&A, however, the Court is concerned about the 22 appropriateness of exercising personal jurisdiction over a party that appears to have little to no 23 contacts with Nevada. Nevertheless, the Court also has several questions about the extent of the 24 relationship between R&A, Richardson, and RDP that it cannot answer on the record before it. The 25 Court therefore declines to make a definitive ruling as to R&A in order to give the Plaintiffs an 26 opportunity, through discovery, to present evidence regarding R&A’s jurisdictional ties to Nevada. AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 5 1 Consequently, the Court denies without prejudice Defendants’ Motion with respect to R&A. 2 Defendant R&A may refile its motion after Plaintiffs are afforded an opportunity to conduct 3 discovery on this jurisdictional issue. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, and for good cause appearing, 6 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss (#15) is DENIED. 7 8 Dated: June 29, 2009. 9 10 ____________________________________ ROGER L. HUNT Chief United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
