Brainerd v. Governors of University of Alberta, No. 87-2854
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before CHAMBERS, CANBY and NORRIS; CANBY |
| Citation | 873 F.2d 1257 |
| Parties | 53 Ed. Law Rep. 451 Charles J. BRAINERD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA; J. Peter Meekison; Eugene S. Lechelt; Pamela Jarvis, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 87-2854 |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1989 |
Page 1257
v.
The GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA; J. Peter
Meekison; Eugene S. Lechelt; Pamela Jarvis,
Defendants-Appellees.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided April 26, 1989.
Don Awerkamp, Tucson, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant.
D. Michael Mandig, Tucson, Ariz., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before CHAMBERS, CANBY and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Charles J. Brainerd appeals the dismissal of his action against J. Peter Meekison and the Governors of the University of Alberta for lack of personal jurisdiction. We reverse in part, vacate the judgment and remand.
FACTS 1 AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Charles J. Brainerd, the plaintiff, was formerly employed by the University of
Page 1258
Alberta, Canada, as a faculty member. The defendants are J. Peter Meekison, Academic Vice President of the University of Alberta, and the Governors of the University of Alberta, the corporate body that directs the University. A dispute arose between Brainerd and the University over the alleged misuse of grant funds. Brainerd and the University entered into a settlement agreement that provided that Brainerd would resign his academic position and the University would provide a specific reference for him, in the form outlined in the agreement. This reference simply stated Brainerd's employment dates, his duties, and that his annual performance evaluations were average or above average.Brainerd subsequently accepted a tenured position with the University of Arizona. Rumors regarding his departure from the University of Alberta reached administrators at the University of Arizona, and Cliff Conrad, an associate dean at the College of Education of the University of Arizona, telephoned Meekison in Alberta to investigate the rumors. The content of this telephone conversation is the source of this lawsuit. Brainerd alleges that Meekison accused him of misusing federal research funds and travel funds. He further alleges that Meekison told Conrad that he would not hire Brainerd, and as a result of the conversation, Conrad concluded that Meekison had severe reservations about the academic and personal integrity of Brainerd.
Approximately two months later, Nils Hasselmo, Provost of the University of Arizona, telephoned Meekison. Meekison refused to answer Hasselmo's questions regarding Brainerd, and requested that Hasselmo submit any questions he had in writing. Hasselmo followed up with a letter, but Meekison, in a written letter, again refused to respond to these inquiries.
Brainerd subsequently filed suit in Arizona state court against Meekison and the Governors of the University of Alberta 2 for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The case was removed to federal district court, and the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The jurisdictional facts are not disputed. As a result, this court reviews the determination of personal jurisdiction de novo. Haisten v. Grass Valley Medical Reimbursement Fund, Ltd., 784 F.2d 1392, 1396 (9th Cir.1986). Brainerd must make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to avoid dismissal. Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1420 (9th Cir.1987).
Arizona law governs this personal jurisdiction issue. See Sinatra v. National Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir.1988). Arizona's long-arm rule permits personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 153 Ariz. 268, 270, 736 P.2d 2, 4 (1987); Ariz.R.Civ.P. Rule 4(e)(2). As a result, we need only determine whether personal jurisdiction in this case would meet the requirements of due process. Sinatra, 854 F.2d at 1194.
Two defendants are involved in this appeal: Meekison, and his employer, the Governors of the University of Alberta. Personal jurisdiction over each defendant must be analyzed individually. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 790, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 1487, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984).
A. PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER MEEKISON
Defendant Meekison's contacts with Arizona, the forum state, consist of his communications to and from the University of Arizona regarding the rumors surrounding
Page 1259
Brainerd's departure. Meekison received two telephone calls and responded to a letter. Meekison argues that these contacts are insufficient, under the principles of due process, to establish personal jurisdiction. It is the quality of these contacts, however, and not the quantity, that confers personal jurisdiction over a defendant. See Lake, 817 F.2d at 1421; Meyers v. Hamilton Corp., 143 Ariz. 249, 253, 693 P.2d 904, 908 (1985).Due process requires that a defendant have minimum contacts with the forum "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fiore v. Walden, No. 08–17558.
...[arose] ... from the fact that [plaintiff was] an individual who live[d] in California”); Brainerd v. Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that there was personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “knew the injury and harm stemming from his communic......
-
Brink v. First Credit Resources, No. Civ-97-1261-PHX-ROS.
...his activities or consummated some transaction with the forum or residents thereof. Brainerd v. Governors of the University of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Lake, 817 F.2d at Fayazi and Merkwan drafted and participated in sending the letters to Plaintiff and members of......
-
Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank Ag, Nos. Civ.024845(RJL/AJB), CIV023682(RJL/AJB), CIV023711(RHK/AJB).
...[its] consequences felt in the [relevant] forum," Dakota Indus., 946 F.2d at 1391 (quoting Brainerd v. Governors of Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.1989)), to the foreseeable effects on U.S. broker-dealers-compels a finding that FBW and E*Trade have established at least a pri......
-
Trump v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State of Nev. In and For County of Clark, No. 23912
...King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Brainerd v. Governors of the University of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.1989) ("[t]he purposeful availment requirement ... may also be satisfied if the defendant intentionally directed his activities......
-
Fiore v. Walden, No. 08–17558.
...[arose] ... from the fact that [plaintiff was] an individual who live[d] in California”); Brainerd v. Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that there was personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “knew the injury and harm stemming from his communic......
-
Brink v. First Credit Resources, No. Civ-97-1261-PHX-ROS.
...his activities or consummated some transaction with the forum or residents thereof. Brainerd v. Governors of the University of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Lake, 817 F.2d at Fayazi and Merkwan drafted and participated in sending the letters to Plaintiff and members of......
-
Fiore v. Walden, No. 08–17558.
...[arose] ... from the fact that [plaintiff was] an individual who live[d] in California”); Brainerd v. Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that there was personal jurisdiction over a defendant who “knew the injury and harm stemming from his communic......
-
Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Netvertising Ltd., No. C11–3034–MWB.
...Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1390–91 (8th Cir.1991) (quoting Brainerd v. Governors of Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1260 (9th Cir.1989)). Moreover, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, unlike the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, construes the Calder effec......
-
Personal Jurisdiction And The Calder Effects Test: Ninth Circuit Sides With Florida Plaintiff In Defamation Suit Against Bishops
...to target the forum state if the purpose is to cause harm in the forum state. See Brainerd v. Governors of the University of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1989).Plaintiff alleged that Defendants' intended conduct and communications includedwritten correspondence and phone calls regarding......
-
FORD'S UNDERLYING CONTROVERSY.
...activities might result in his being haled into court in that jurisdiction."). (233.) See Brainerd v. Governors of the Univ. of Alberta, 873 F.2d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 1989) ("The requirement of 'purposeful availment' is based on the presumption that it is reasonable to require a defendant w......