Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

May Dep't Stores Co. v. Wilansky - 900 F. Supp. 1154 (E.D. Mo. 1995)

Rule:

A federal court may assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant only to the extent permitted by the forum state's long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. A two-step analysis is utilized to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists over nonresident defendants. First, it is determined whether the state long-arm statute confers jurisdiction. If so, then the court must decide whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. 

Facts:

Under the employment agreement, Heywood L. Wilansky became the President and Chief Executive Officer of The May Department Stores Company’s division in Massachusetts. Subsequently, Wilansky accepted the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of The Bon-Ton Stores, Inc.'s in Pennsylvania. May filed a complaint alleging that Wilansky had breached an employment agreement and that Bon-Ton tortiously interfered with the subject employment agreement. Both employers were engaged in the retail store business. Wilansky and Bon-Ton filed motions to dismiss the complaint.

Issue:

Was the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Bon-Ton appropriate?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court granted Wilansky’s motion to quash service of process and his alternative motion to transfer venue to Pennsylvania. Wilansky’s motion to dismiss was otherwise denied. The court granted Bon-Ton’s motion to transfer the case the Pennsylvania and denied Bon-Ton’s motion to dismiss as moot. Bon-Ton did not transact business in Missouri, and had no offices, bank accounts, agents, or assets in Missouri. The limited contact that Bon-Ton had with Missouri was so attenuated that the maintenance of the suit in Missouri would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. However, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Wilansky would not violate constitutional due process requirements. The court had personal jurisdiction over Wilansky but not over Bon-Ton. The interests of justice weighed in favor of the transfer of the entire action so that it could be consolidated.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates