Mercer v. MacKinnon (P)

The circuit court properly dismissed this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although the court has not previously construed the phrase “persistent course of conduct,” persuasive authority from other courts sheds some light on the scope and duration of the conduct that is necessary to justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction over a litigant.

Here, the defendant’s pre-litigation contact with Virginia consisted of traveling to Virginia, having certain legal documents drawn up, and returning with her aunt to Canada. Her other contact with Virginia was for the limited purpose of litigating a single case. These contacts with Virginia didn’t exist for a long or longer than usual time or continuously, and they weren’t enduring or lingering. The contacts were instead a limited, discrete quantum of activity. Thus, the defendant’s activities were not sufficient in scope and duration to constitute a persistent course of conduct under Code § 8.01-328.1(A)(4).

Affirmed.

Mercer v. MacKinnon (P), No. 180358, Feb. 21, 2019. SCV (McCullough) from Loudoun (Sincavage).



Categories: Opinions, Published, Supreme Court of Virginia

Tags:

%d bloggers like this: