U.S. Equities Corporation v. Alfons Liriani (2012)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE PERSONAL JURISDICTION

The plaintiff U.S. Equities Corp., a corporation whose offices are in South Salem, N.Y., brings this action against the defendant Alfons A. Liriani, who resides in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.   The plaintiff is a debt buyer who acquired title to this Chase Bank U.S.A. credit card debt through another intermediate debt buyer.   At one point the defendant lived in Connecticut, but the plaintiff's exhibits indicate that the defendant's contact with the State of Connecticut ended in 2008.   In 2011, the defendant was served at what is termed his usual place of abode in Myrtle Beach, by an individual named Sharon Smart who indicates that she is a process server in South Carolina.   The process server's return is on a plain white sheet of paper, with no letterhead or other indication of the bona fides of her credentials.   The defendant has not appeared in this action.

Concerned about the circumstances of service of process and concerned that there was no presence by either the plaintiff or the defendant in the State of Connecticut at the time this suit was brought, the court indicated its intention to dismiss this matter for lack of personal jurisdiction, unless the plaintiff could show that it was proper for the Superior Court of Connecticut to exercise its jurisdiction over this matter.

The plaintiff was invited to submit a brief and appear for oral argument, to cite legal authority on this issue.   That brief was submitted on May 3, 2012.   Having reviewed the contents of this file and the submissions of the plaintiff, this court finds that it does not comport with due process to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant in this matter.

THE LONG–ARM STATUTE

Connecticut's long-arm statute would permit the exercise of statutory jurisdiction over the defendant, who, in years past, transacted business in this state by paying, and presumably using, the Chase account, the debt of which the plaintiff purchased.  Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52–59b(a)(1).   The court must still be satisfied that, aside from statutory jurisdiction, the exercise of its jurisdiction will not offend principles of due process.   International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed.2d 95 (1945).

JURISDICTION UNDER DUE PROCESS PRINCIPLES

Under the principles enunciated in International Shoe, the due process test for personal jurisdiction has two related components:  the minimum contacts inquiry and the reasonableness inquiry.   The court must first determine whether the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to justify the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction.   Once minimum contacts have been established, the question is whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice—that is, whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case.

It appears that at one time the defendant had minimum contacts with the State of Connecticut.   From the exhibits submitted by the plaintiff, it is clear that the defendant once lived in this state.   The exhibits indicate that the defendant once used a Connecticut bank account to make payments on the Chase credit card account.   However, the record is devoid of any contacts of jurisdictional significance since 2008.   Rather it appears that the defendant moved at some point to South Carolina where he now makes his home.

This court finds that the defendant no longer has sufficient contacts with the State of Connecticut to justify hauling him into court in this state for this debt.   More importantly, the court finds that it does not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to do so, at least where the defendant is located in a jurisdiction where this suit can be brought, and especially so when there is no evidence that the defendant has left the jurisdiction to avoid suit on what is an ordinary consumer transaction, or is otherwise evading service of process.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The court finds that Constitutional principles of due process mandate dismissal of this action.   Accordingly a dismissal shall enter.

Patty Jenkins Pittman, Judge

Pittman, Patty Jenkins, J.