The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, holding that communications directed to Colorado and a personal meeting in Colorado did not provide a basis for personal jurisdiction over defendants in Colorado.
The case arose out of a contract between plaintiff, a Maryland limited liability company with a Colorado principal place of business, and defendants, Chinese and Delaware corporations. Plaintiff sent orders for goods from Maryland, which defendants would then ship from China to Maryland. During the course of performance, some communications took place with plaintiff’s representatives in Colorado, and at least one face-to-face meeting took place in Colorado. Defendants ultimately breached the contract and plaintiff commenced suit in Colorado.
Defendants argued that they were not subject to jurisdiction in Colorado. Plaintiff cited numerous interstate phone calls and emails with its personnel in Colorado, as well as a personal meeting in Colorado, all of which allegedly had some connection with servicing the contract. However, the court held that the phone calls and emails to Colorado only took place in “non-routine circumstances” such as when there was a problem with an order—routine communications about the contract were directed to Maryland. The court determined that the meeting was not related to either contract formation or breach and that as a result, it could not provide a basis for jurisdiction in Colorado. (G&G Internat’l LLC v. Camsing Co. LLC, No. 09-CV-0366, 2010 WL 466812 (D.Co. Feb. 9, 2010))