United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - 290 F.2d 42, 290 F.3d 42
In Daynard v. Ness Motley et al. (2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit made an important decision regarding personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in civil lawsuits. The case centered around a breach of contract claim involving a Mississippi law firm and its senior partner. Plaintiff Richard Daynard, a law professor in Massachusetts, argued he was owed a portion of the fees the law firms received from successful tobacco litigation. He claimed there was a verbal agreement for him to provide advice in exchange for a five percent share of the fees.
The central issue was whether the Massachusetts district court had personal jurisdiction over the Mississippi defendants, who sought to dismiss the claim citing Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The district court agreed with the defendants, but Daynard appealed to the First Circuit.
The First Circuit reversed the previous decision, finding that Daynard had made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. They applied a three-part test to determine jurisdiction based on the defendants' actions relating to Massachusetts, their purposeful use of Massachusetts law, and whether exercising jurisdiction was reasonable given various factors.
This case demonstrates how courts evaluate different aspects to determine personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in federal cases, particularly those involved with other defendants who have more significant connections to the forum state. It also highlights the importance of balancing factors to ensure that exercising jurisdiction aligns with due process and fairness.
The legal case involves a fee dispute between a law professor, Daynard, and two law firms, Scruggs Millette and Ness Motley, regarding tobacco litigation. Daynard claims that the firms agreed to pay him 5% of any fees recovered in state tobacco litigation where any of the defendants were counsel, but they did not pay him any legal fees. The district court dismissed Daynard's complaint against the Scruggs defendants due to lack of personal jurisdiction, but the court erred by relying on a general jurisdiction case to derive the "substantial influence" requirement for specific jurisdiction purposes. Daynard is appealing the district court's holding that it lacks personal jurisdiction under an imputed or attributed contacts theory, and the burden of proof and standard of review are being discussed. The court is considering whether the defendants' conduct or conduct undertaken with their consent gave Daynard a basis for his belief that they were joint venturers, and whether there is a sufficient relationship between the defendants to allow for the exercise of jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.