Human Resource Certification v. Human Resources Professional, No. 11-1205 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Affirmed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1205 HUMAN RESOURCE CERTIFICATION INSTITUTE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00822-LO-JFA) Submitted: October 31, 2011 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DIAZ, Circuit Decided: Judges, and November 16, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Sensenig, GAVIN LAW OFFICES, PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. H. Scott Johnson, Jr., Angela H. France, PCT LAW GROUP, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Human Resource Certification Institute ( HRCI ) appeals the district court s order granting Defendant s motion to dismiss its civil action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, HRCI argues that the district court erred in determining that it failed to make a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. HRCI also maintains that Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) provides an alternative basis for jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court s judgment. When personal jurisdiction is challenged under Rule 12(b)(2), the jurisdictional question is resolved by the judge, with the burden on the plaintiff ultimately to prove grounds for jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 59-60 (4th Cir. 1993). When the district court addresses the question of personal jurisdiction on the basis of the motion papers, legal memoranda, allegations in the complaint, and the jurisdictional discovery, the facts are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and we determine de novo whether the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Mitrano v. Hawes, 377 F.3d 402, 406 (4th Cir. 2004); Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989). 2 To establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant through a state long-arm statute, a court must first determine that jurisdiction is authorized by state law; if so, the court must next decide whether exercising jurisdiction would be consistent with due process. personal Consulting Eng rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, 277 (4th Cir. 2009). Virginia s long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the limits allowed by the Due Process Clause. Id. Thus, our statutory inquiry merges with our constitutional inquiry. Id. non-resident A court s defendant exercise comports of with jurisdiction due process over if a the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum, such that to require does the not defendant offend to defend traditional substantial justice. its interests notions of in that fair state play and Int l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a non-resident defendant s contacts with the forum state form the basis for the suit, they may establish specific jurisdiction in the forum state. Inc. v. Carefirst (4th Cir. 2003). exists, the court Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., Carefirst of Md., 334 F.3d 390, 397 In determining whether specific jurisdiction considers (1) the extent to which the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state; (2) whether the plaintiff s 3 claims arise out of those activities directed at the state; and (3) whether the exercise of constitutionally reasonable. personal Id. jurisdiction would be After review of the record, we agree with the district court that HRCI failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction. We Defendant also is conclude subject to HRCI fails jurisdiction under 4(k)(2) that in essence a show Fed. that R. the Civ. federal P. 4(k)(2). Rule statute. Saudi v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 427 F.3d 271, 275 (4th Cir. 2005). is to long-arm For jurisdiction to exist under the rule, three requirements must be met: first, the suit must arise under federal law; second, the defendant must not be subject to personal jurisdiction in any state; and third, the defendant must have contacts with the United States consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. to the third prong, the relevant Id. question is With respect whether the defendant s contacts with the United States as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. OJSC Novokuznetsky (4th Cir. 2002). Aluminum In other Base Metal Trading, Ltd. v. Factory , words, the 283 F.3d defendant 208, must 215 have contacts with the United States as a whole sufficient to satisfy the standards jurisdiction. for either specific jurisdiction Saudi, 427 F.3d at 275-76. 4 or general After reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that HRCI cannot meet the third prong of this test because the record does not support the conclusion that the Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the United States. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
