“In general, jurisdiction is [a] court’s power to decide acase.” (See Peidlow v. Williams (2020) 459 P.3d 1136, 1145.)
“For a court to exercise jurisdiction over a given case, it must havepersonal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction overthe claims asserted.” (See Olson v. Olson, Supreme Court No. S-11965, at*6 (Alaska Sep. 5, 2007).)
Purpose and Significance of Personal Jurisdiction
“The requirement that the court have personal jurisdiction over theparties before it is an element of due process.”(See Kerr v. Kerr (1989) 779 P.2d 341, 343; Hanson v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S.235, 250, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1237, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283.)
“The scope of the superior court's personal jurisdiction is governed byAS 09.05.015, which provides that Alaska courts may exercise personaljurisdiction over a defendant who is a natural person domiciled in thisstate.” (See Olson v. Olson, Supreme Court No. S-11965, at *6 (AlaskaSep. 5, 2007); Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316; Nw.Med., Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue (2006) 151 P.3d 434, 438.)
“Alaska's superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction andtherefore hav[e] the power to hear all controversies which may be broughtbefore [them] within the legal bounds of rights or remedies, except insofar ashas been expressly and unequivocally denied by the state's constitution orstatutes.” (See id; Siggelkow v. State (1987) 731 P.2d 57, 61.)
“This court is guided by the principle that due process of law requiresminimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offendtraditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (See Puhlmanv. Turner (1994) 874 P.2d 291, 294; Glover v. Western Air Lines, Inc. (1987)745 P.2d 1365, 1367; Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 788, 104 S.Ct. 1482,1486, 79 L.Ed.2d 804.)
“This court has deemed it fair to exercise personal jurisdictionwhere the defendant's contacts with the forum are substantial enough thatthe defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into court. ..”(See id; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct.2174, 2182, 85 L.Ed.2d 528.)
Rules for Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Rule 12 of the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to dismiss.
“Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading,whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall beasserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except thatthe following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made bymotion…(2) lack of jurisdiction over the person…” (SeeAlaska R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).)
“Alaska’s long-arm statute, AS 09.05.015, lays out a list ofcirc*mstances under which personal jurisdiction may be exercised. The listis not exclusive; the statute includes a ‘catch-all’ provision,which we have interpreted as allowing courts to exercise jurisdiction to theextent allowed by the Due Process Clause of the FourteenthAmendment.”(See Armstrong v. Chance (2024) 541 P.3d 1128, 1132.)
Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of PersonalJurisdiction
“The decisions of trial courts regarding motions to dismiss involvelegal issues which we review de novo.”(See Krause v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough (2010) 229 P.3d 168, 174; CatholicBishop of N. Alaska v. John Does 1-6 (2006) 141 P.3d 719, 722; Nunez v. Am.Seafoods (2002) 52 P.3d 720, 721; Guerrero v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp. (2000) 6P.3d 250, 253.)
“To survive a motion to dismiss filed under Alaska Civil Rule 12, it isenough that the complaint set forth allegations of fact consistent with andappropriate to some enforceable cause of action.” (See id; Carlson v.Renkes (2005) 113 P.3d 638, 641; Caudle v. Mendel (1999) 994 P.2d 372, 374.)
“This lenient standard means that [i]f, within the framework of thecomplaint, evidence may be introduced which will sustain a grant of relief tothe plaintiff, the complaint is sufficient. We must presume all factualallegations of the complaint to be true and [make] all reasonable inferences .. . in favor of the non-moving party.” (See id; Belluomini v. Fred Meyerof Alaska, Inc. (1999) 993 P.2d 1009, 1014l; Kollodge v. State (1988) 757 P.2d1024, 1026.)
Notable Decisions Discussing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of PersonalJurisdiction
“This court may exercise jurisdiction under Alaska's long-arm statute to the maximum extent permitted by due process under the federal constitution. Due process permits the assertion of jurisdiction over a defendant in any state with which the defendant has certain minimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (See Glover v. Western Air Lines, Inc. (1987) 745 P.2d 1365, 1367; Calder v. Jones (1984) 465 U.S. 783, 788, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 1486, 79 L.Ed.2d 804, 811; Milliken v. Meyer (1940) 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 343, 85 L.Ed. 278, 283.)
“In essence, jurisdiction may be asserted when it is found that the defendant's contacts with the forum are substantial enough that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in that forum. The defendant's contacts with the forum should be found sufficiently substantial whenever a defendant has maintained continuous and systematic general business contacts with the forum state.” (See id; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2182, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 542; Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1985) 466 U.S. 408, 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1873, 80 L.Ed.2d 404, 412.)
