Federal Court Rules "Mere Affiliation" Is Insufficient To Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Nearly four years ago, I wrote about a Nevada Supreme Court decision holding that Nevada courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident officers and directors who directly harm the corporation.  Consipio Holding, BV v. Carlberg, 282 P.3d 751 (2012).  At the time, Nevada did not have an implied consent statute similar to Del. Code tit. 10, § 3114(a).  The following year, the Nevada legislature enacted an implied consent statute, NRS 75.160.  

Consipio and NRS 75.160 suggest that a director or officer's affiliation with a Nevada corporation are sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. However, according to U.S. District Court Robert C. Jones, "mere affiliation" is insufficient:

Subjecting the directors or officers of a corporation to jurisdiction in any forum in which a corporation operates or is incorporated when the directors or officers have no personal contacts whatsoever with the forum state denies them due process protection. To exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident officer or director of a Nevada corporation, a defendant must have some contact with the forum state that is related to or gave rise to the cause of action. Mere affiliation with the corporation is not enough.

Southport Lane Equity II, LLC v. Downey, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44712 (April 1, 2016).