|Jurisdiction and Venue Proper in Home State of Plaintiff|
|Description||Appeals court held that a Nevada resident properly established jurisdiction and venue in federal court in Nevada in a suit filed against a Utah business for violating federal credit law. While the Utah firm did not enter Nevada, its actions were directed at residents of Nevada.|
|Key Words||Federal Question; Personal Jurisdiction; Venue|
|C A S E S U M M A R Y|
|Facts||Bennett Law Offices, of Utah, ordered a credit report on ARS, a Nevada company owned by the Myers. Myers sued Bennett in federal court in Nevada for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for ordering the credit report for an improper purpose. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Myers appealed.|
Reversed. By ordering credit reports on Nevada residents, supposedly in violation of a federal statute, the FCRA, the defendant engaged in conduct expressly aimed at the forum state. The statute creates subject matter jurisdiction. Because the defendant intentionally directed action toward a Nevada resident, the defendant met the contact requirement to establish personal jurisdiction of the federal court in Nevada. There is no compelling circumstance to render exercise of jurisdiction in Nevada unreasonable. The fact that an alternative forum is available in Utah does not mean that it must be used by plaintiff. Similarly, venue is proper in Nevada.
|Citation||Myers v. The Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir., 2000)|
Back to Court Procedure Listings
©1997-2002 SW Legal Studies in Business. All Rights Reserved.