No Contacts With Indiana

The Indiana Supreme Court has held that 

Indiana courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents to the fullest extent of “minimum contacts” precedent under the Fourteenth Amendment. Still, we scrutinize those contacts closely so out-of-state defendants will not be unfairly called into our state to defend themselves. Here, a Kentucky attorney’s contacts and connections with Indiana were far too minimal to permit personal jurisdiction. We therefore affirm the trial court.

The attorney had filed an employment discrimination suit in Kentucky federal court.

The defendants in that litigation retaliated by filing suit against the attorney in Indiana state court.

Boyer and Richard sued Ernest and Attorney Cassidy in an Indiana state court, alleging that the Kentucky suit was frivolous and constituted malicious prosecution, abuse of process, fraud, constructive fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of Ernest and Attorney Cassidy, determining (1) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, (2) it lacked personal jurisdiction over Cassidy, and (3) res judicata barred Boyer and Richard’s claims.

Holding

Indiana lacked specific jurisdiction over Attorney Cassidy. Her actions in the prior Kentucky lawsuit were taken in Kentucky, not Indiana—and we cannot say those actions were purposefully directed into or caused injury in Indiana merely because Plaintiffs are Indiana residents. Her conduct therefore did not establish a substantial connection between herself and this State, and thus cannot support personal jurisdiction. Consequently, we affirm the trial court as to the personal jurisdiction issue.

(Mike Frisch)