One defense that may be raised to a lawsuit is that defendant cannot be sued in the forum chosen by the plaintiff because defendant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The defense is raised under Rule 12.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
As recently explained by the Tennessee Court of Appeals,
[u]nder Tennessee law, the plaintiff carries the burden of demonstrating that the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is proper. [Baskin v. Pierce & Allred Constr., Inc., – S.W.3d –, No. M2021-00144- SCR-11CV, 2023 WL 6304872, at] *16 ](Tenn. Sept. 28, 2023) (quoting First Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. First Tenn. Bank, N.A., 489 S.W.3d 369, 382 (Tenn. 2015)) (internal citations omitted).] (citation omitted). When, as in this case, a defendant challenges the exercise of personal jurisdiction through a Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12.02 motion to dismiss and supports the motion with an affidavit and other materials, “the plaintiff may not rely solely on the allegations in the complaint” to carry its burden. Rather, the plaintiff “must submit affidavits or other materials” to establish a prima facie case that the court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Id. at *5 (citations omitted). “To make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction under Tennessee law, the factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint, affidavits, and other evidentiary materials must establish sufficient contacts between the defendant and Tennessee with reasonable particularity.” Crouch Ry. Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460, 470 (Tenn. 2020) (citation omitted).
Williams v. Collins, No. M2023-00452-COA-R3-CV at *4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2023).
The Court of Appeals went on to explain that
When evaluating a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02 motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the trial court must accept the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and resolve factual disputes in the plaintiff’s favor. Id. (citation omitted). Although the court must be careful “to avoid improperly depriving the plaintiff of its right to have its claim adjudicated on the merits[,]” it “is not obligated to accept as true allegations that are controverted by more reliable evidence and plainly lack credibility, conclusory allegations, or farfetched inferences.” [(Crouch Ry. Consulting, LLC v. LS Energy Fabrication, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 460, 470 (Tenn. 2020)](citations omitted). On appeal, our evaluation is the same as the trial court’s. Id.
Id. at *5.
This is how the Tennessee Supreme Court defines the jurisdictional reach of Tennessee courts:
[T]he general formulation of what due process requires is that a nonresident defendant have “certain minimum contacts” with a state “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339 (1940)). The analysis of whether the defendant’s contacts with the state satisfy due process “cannot be simply mechanical or quantitative.” Id. at 319. Instead, courts must look to “the quality and nature” of the defendant’s activities. Id. Furthermore, this inquiry focuses not on the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff or other persons residing in the forum state, but rather on the defendant’s relationship to the forum state itself. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct., 582 U.S. 255, 262, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 198 L.Ed.2d 395 (2017); First Cmty. Bank, 489 S.W.3d at 394. The approach long has been that “[i]n judging minimum contacts, a court properly focuses on ‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’” Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204,
97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)).
Baskin, – S.W.3d –, 2003 WL 6304872, at *6. As explained by the Court of Appeals in Williams,
this ‘focus on the relationship among the defendant, the forum state, and the litigation has led to the recognition of two subtypes of personal jurisdiction: general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction.’ Id. (citations omitted). Further, ‘[t]he nature and extent of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state generally determine which subtype applies, and the subtype, in turn, determines the breadth of potential legal claims that may be brought against the defendant in that forum.’ Id. (citation omitted).
Williams at *5.
For those of you interested in the application of a the law concerning specific jurisdiction, I suggest that you review the Williams opinion.