Wendy Testa (Partner-Philadelphia, PA) and Casie Salvadore (Associate-Philadelphia, PA) secured dismissal for a title agent client by prevailing on preliminary objections to the complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The action, pending in the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, involved a dispute arising from the sale of a Florida condominium and subsequent wire fraud of the condominium sale proceeds by a third party. Plaintiff / condominium owner was a trust formed in Pennsylvania. The only connection to Pennsylvania was the formation of the trust in this state. All other aspects were in Florida. Wendy and Casie successfully argued to the court that our client had no reasonable expectation to be sued in Pennsylvania due to a complete lack of contacts with the Commonwealth. The firm client, a Florida licensed title agent located and doing business in Florida only, was merely involved in the closing of a property located in Florida and had no relationship with or duty to the Pennsylvania trust / condominium owner. The court’s decision to grant preliminary objections for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissing our Florida-based client underscores the importance of challenging jurisdictional overreach. 

Colleen Vellturo (Of Counsel-Stamford, CT) and Stephen P. Brown (Partner-Stamford, CT) represented a Vermont-based attorney and firm that handled the sale of a Connecticut man’s second home in Vermont. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, which held that the Vermont-based attorney could not be brought into court in Connecticut because Connecticut’s long-arm statute could not provide personal jurisdiction over the Vermont defendants. The plaintiff, the girlfriend of the man whose property was sold, failed to demonstrate sufficient facts such that any of the sections of the long-arm statute could apply. Specifically, the Vermont firm did not transact business in Connecticut, enter into a contract in Connecticut, solicit business from Connecticut residents, derive substantial revenue from Connecticut, nor did they commit a tort in Connecticut. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the action as to the Vermont attorneys.