Lee Pederson v. Phillip Frost, No. 21-1260 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam. Before Benton, Kelly, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Diversity. Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed, as Pederson may not relitigate whether his contacts constituted sufficient minimum contacts that were previously rejected and other contacts were insufficient. Pederson waived his Rule 11 sanctions argument.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1260 ___________________________ Lee Michael Pederson lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Phillip Frost; CoCrystal Pharma, Inc.; Daniel Fisher lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: December 23, 2021 Filed: December 29, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Lee Pederson appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Upon de novo review, see Whaley v. Esebag, 1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable David T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 946 F.3d 447, 451 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review), we affirm. We find that Pederson is precluded from relitigating whether his telephone and email contact with, and prior legal representation of, defendants or their agents constituted sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction over them in the District of Minnesota, as this court previously decided they were not. See Pederson v. Frost, 951 F.3d 977, 980-81 (8th Cir. 2020) (holding these contacts were insufficient to establish constitutionally required minimum contacts); Pohlmann v. Bil-Jax, Inc., 176 F.3d 1110, 1112 (8th Cir. 1999) (applying issue preclusion to questions of personal jurisdiction). We find that defendants’ other contacts with Minnesota--their settlement of a California real estate lawsuit, which allegedly harmed Pederson in Minnesota, and their alleged participation in nationwide securities schemes--were also insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1781 (2017) (absent connection between forum and underlying controversy, specific personal jurisdiction is lacking, regardless of extent of defendant’s unconnected activities in state); Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 290 (2014) (proper question is not where plaintiff experienced injury, but whether defendant’s conduct connects him to forum in meaningful way); Whaley, 946 F.3d at 452 (factors considered in determining whether defendant’s contacts with forum are sufficient). As Pederson does not meaningfully argue the district court’s imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, he has waived the issue. See United States v. Pacheco-Poo, 952 F.3d 950, 953-54 (8th Cir. 2020) (appellant waived argument, as he failed to cite any case or detail any facts in support thereof). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny the parties’ pending motions to supplement the record. ______________________________ -2-
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.
