Mobile Diagnostic Group Holdings, LLC v. Suer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• declining to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who had only a “limited involvement in negotiating and structuring the transaction”
• granting motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to satisfy the first prong
• distinguishing Hughes and declining to exercise jurisdiction for breach of contract claim because “Delaware’s strong interest in providing a forum for claims involving the internal affairs of domestic corporations is not implicated in this case”
• “Under Delaware’s long-arm statute, Delaware courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant for a claim that ‘arises from’ a ‘jurisdictional act’ enumerated in the statute.”
• “In order for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under § 3104(c)(1), some act must actually occur in Delaware.” Additionally, the claims must have a nexus to [the] forum-related conduct.”
• “It is . . . well established that a choice of Delaware law provision in a contract is not, of itself, a sufficient transaction of business in the State to confer jurisdiction under (c)(1).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).