Panircelvan Kaliannan v. Ee Hoong Liang, No. 19-1427 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs, Singapore residents and citizens who invested in a now-defunct North Dakota company called North Dakota Developments, LLC (NDD), filed suit seeking damages from defendant for his role in convincing plaintiffs to buy fraudulent, unregistered securities.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the district court did not err in determining that it had personal jurisdiction over defendant because his conduct and connection with North Dakota were such that he should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court there. The court also agreed with the district court that venue was proper where plaintiffs' claims arose from the sale or solicitation of unregistered, fraudulent North Dakota securities related to real property located in North Dakota. The court declined to consider the issue of forum non conveniens because defendant failed to raise the claim in the district court. Finally, the court concluded that the district court correctly granted summary judgment where defendant decided to stop participating in the district court litigation, including not responding to the motion for summary judgment.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Securities fraud. The district court did not err in determining it had personal jurisdiction over defendant, a Singapore resident, because he had the necessary minimum contacts with North Dakota and the plaintiff's claims arose out of those contacts; venue was proper in North Dakota as plaintiffs' claims arose from the sale or solicitation of unregistered, fraudulent North Dakota securities related to real property in North Dakota; defendant's argument concerning forum non convenience is raised for the first time on appeal, and the issue would not be considered; defendant voluntarily decided to stop participating in the litigation after his motion to dismiss was denied, and the district court did not err in granting plaintiff summary judgment.
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.