Journal of Business & Technology Law
| Case | Mobile Diagnostics Groups Holdings, LLC v. Suer |
| Court, State | Court of Chancery, Delaware |
| Date of Decision, Type of Case | 3/24/2009, Personal Jurisdiction |
| Case Number | No. 4298-CC |
| Citation | Mobile Diagnostics Groups Holdings, LLC v. Suer, No. 4298-CC (Del. Ch., Mar. 24, 2009). |
| Facts Of Case | The court considered the defendant's motion to expedite plaintiffs' action to enforce a non-compete agreement, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Defendant, Robert Suer, agreed to a non-compete agreement as part of a purchase agreement, under which the plaintiffs bought Suer's employer. Suer, a California resident, signed the purchase agreement in California, and he had never visited Delaware. As part of the purchase agreement the defendant agreed service of process by the plaintiffs according to Delaware rules, and use of Delaware law in any future action. |
| Holding | The chancery court held (1) the non-resident defendant did not consent to be within the court's personal jurisdiction by signing service of process and choice of law covenants specifying that Delaware's process rules and state law be employed in any dispute between the parties; and (2) non-resident defendant did not come within Delaware long-arm statutes definition of business transactions by negotiating and structuring a purchase agreement entirely outside the state. |
| Court Reasoning | The court applied a two-prong analysis to the question of whether Delaware had personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant, inquiring into (1) whether the Suer had consented to personal jurisdiction in Delaware and (2) whether Delaware's long-arm statute extended personal jurisdiction to Suer. The court determined that language in the purchase agreement authorizes that any action be filed in a court having jurisdiction of the parties precluded the argument that the service of process clause in the purchase agreement amounted to a consent to jurisdiction clause. The court stated that Suer had not established minimum contacts sufficient to engage the long arm statute where Suer had by agreeing to the choice of law and service of process provisions. In addition, the court concluded that negotiating the purchase agreement did also not establish sufficient contacts between Suer and the state of Delaware. |
More on the Journal of Business & Technology Law
- Masthead
- Issues
- Business Court Resources
- State Business and Technology Case Database
- Subscriptions
- Membership
