Morrill v. Scott Financial Corp., No. 14-16922 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff and his law firm, Morrill & Aronson, filed suit in Arizona district court alleging claims of abuse of process and wrongful institution of civil proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action based on no personal jurisdiction over any defendant. In this case, plaintiff and his firm resided, or were located, in Arizona. Defendants were a North Dakota Corporation and its sole shareholder and officer, and a Nevada attorney and law firms. The court held that defendants' actions were not purposefully directed at Arizona, and defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the benefits of Arizona law.
Court Description: Personal Jurisdiction The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction over any defendant of an action brought by an attorney and his law firm, alleging claims for abuse of process and wrongful institution of civil proceedings. The plaintiffs resided, or were located, in Arizona, and they brought claims in the District of Arizona. The defendants were a North Dakota corporation and its sole shareholder and officer, and a Nevada attorney and law firms. The panel applied the three-part test for specific personal jurisdiction. Under the first prong, the panel applied the purposeful direction test because the nature of the underlying claims arose from alleged tortious conduct. The panel held that defendants’ actions were not purposefully directed at MORRILL V. SCOTT FINANCIAL 3 Arizona. The panel further held that to establish personal jurisdiction over defendants in this action, plaintiffs were required to make a prima facie showing that defendants’ alleged actions were directed at Arizona, not just at individuals who resided there, and plaintiffs failed to do so. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ contention that the purposeful availment test also applied to this case. First, the panel held that the claims at issue were premised on alleged tortious conduct by defendants, and therefore, the purposeful availment test did not apply. Second, the panel held that even if the test applied, plaintiffs’ allegations as to the relevant conduct were insufficient to show purposeful availment. Judge Kleinfeld dissented because he concluded that the majority misinterpreted, and misapplied, the law. Judge Kleinfeld would hold that the district court erred in finding that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants.
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.