Jurisdiction

Pages15-17
15
international law update Volume 18, January–March 2012
© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
is identical to the one in place when the Treaty
was enacted. In light of the utter lack of evidence
indicating that compound interest is a recognized
remedy under Iranian law, we reverse that portion of
the award. However, because Iran does not challenge
the award of simple interest in this case, we remand
for calculation of an award consisting of the value
of McKesson’s expropriated interest in Pak and its
withheld dividends plus simple interest.” [Slip op. 30]
: McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
678 F.3d 1066 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
JURISDICTION
T S C  
’      
     
     
O   D, R
    O   
 
Plainti Richard A. Conn contracted with
Defendant Vladimir Zakharov, a Russian citizen, in
which Conn would gain a 15% share of a proposed
venture by Zakharov’s company. No sooner had
Conn moved to Russia to perform the agreement,
than Zakharov repudiated the contract. Conn then
moved back to the United States.
As to contacts with the U.S., Zakharov attended
graduate school at Case Western Reserve University
in University Heights, Ohio, and graduated in 2002.
Zakharov and his wife own and maintain real estate
year round in Pepper Pike, Ohio which Zakharov
spent millions of dollars renovating. Zakharov
also owns several vehicles registered in Ohio, and
maintains a bank account in Ohio, He also spends
some time in Ohio each year.
After returning from Russia, Conn sued
Zakharov in an Ohio federal court basing jurisdiction
on his property ownership. Conn claimed a breach
of contract and sought an judicial accounting to
determine what a 15% share of the Russian venture
would have been. Zakharov moved to dismiss the
complaint [1] for lack of personal jurisdiction,[2]
forum non conveniens, and [3] failure to state a viable
claim.
After discovery relating to the personal
jurisdiction issue, the district court granted
Zakharov’s motion to dismiss. Finding that
Zakharov was not an Ohio resident, the court ruled
that, for lack of sucient Ohio contacts, Plainti
had not properly served him with process. Plaintiff
led an appeal. e U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, however, arms. It rules that both
Ohio state law and the federal Due Process Clause
precluded the district court from nding personal
jurisdiction over Zakharov.
e Court begins by citing its decision in
International Techs. Consultants v. Euroglas S.A., 107
F.3d 386, 391 (6th Cir. 1997). ere it stated that
“[a] federal court sitting in diversity may not exercise
jurisdiction over a Defendant unless courts of the
forum state would be authorized to do so by state
law—and any such exercise of jurisdiction must be
compatible with the due process requirements of the
United States Constitution.” [Slip op. 3]
Due process requires that the parties have
sucient contacts with the forum state so that it
is fair to subject them to jurisdiction there. e
Plainti has shown his belief that there is personal
jurisdiction over Defendant by suing him in an
Ohio federal court. When Defendant challenges
such jurisdiction, the Plainti has to establish
specic facts that personal jurisdiction exists over
the non-resident Defendant by a preponderance of
the evidence. However, where, as is the case here,
the Defendant has moved to dismiss the case under
Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and
the district court rules on the motion without an
evidentiary hearing, the Plainti need only make a
“prima facie” case that there is personal jurisdiction.
Reviewing the district court’s dismissal de novo,
the Court of Appeals concludes that the District
Court did not have personal jurisdiction over
Zakharov unless [1] Conn proved that jurisdiction
was proper under a long-arm statute of Ohio and
[2] the federal Due Process Clause allowed for
jurisdiction.
e Court rst looks to Ohio state law, which
declares that personal jurisdiction is only available
if the long-arm statute confers jurisdiction and
jurisdiction is proper under the Federal Due Process
Clause. e Court notes that Ohio’s long-arm
statute does not reaches the limits of the Due Process
Clause. erefore, the Court analyzes Federal Due
Process law.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT