Whaley v. Esebag, No. 18-3236 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, based on lack of personal jurisdiction, of plaintiffs' action against defendants over a dispute involving an investment agreement. The court held that defendants had sufficient contacts with Arkansas to establish personal jurisdiction in light of the nature and quality of contacts with the forum state, the quality of contacts, the relation of the cause of action to the contacts, the interest of forum state, and the convenience of the parties. In this case, the court held that the first and third factors weigh in favor of personal jurisdiction, while the second, third, and fourth factors were more neutral. The court found that personal jurisdiction applies to the claims asserted against both Defendants Esebag and ULG, and thus Esebag's actions were sufficient to bind the company and assert personal jurisdiction over ULG without violating the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Colloton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Jurisdiction. On appeal from dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, to assess minimum contacts, we look to the nature and quality of contacts with the forum state, the quality of contacts, the relation of the cause of action to the contacts, the interest of forum state, and the convenience of the parties. During negotiations between Arkansas residents and Esebag, a California resident, meetings were conducted in California and Arkansas; calls, emails and texts were sent to Arkansas; products were shipped to Arkansas; and the prospect of doing business in Arkansas, weighs in favor of finding the nature and quality of contacts to be in Arkansas; the relationship between the allegations of fraud (an intentional tort claim) and Esberg's contacts with Arkansas weighs in favor of finding personal jurisdiction in Arkansas. Other factors appear more neutral. District court's dismissal is reversed, as Esebag's actions are sufficient to bind ULG and assert personal jurisdiction without violating the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
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.