In  Oytan v. David-Oytan, Division 1 of the Washington State Court of Appeals considered whether, in a dissolution proceeding, the husband who had never resided in Washington State could be subject to Washington courts for the purposes of dividing assets, entering child support, and ordering attorney fees.   The Court of Appeals held that there was personal jurisdiction over the husband under Washington’s long-arm statute, RCW 4.28.185(1)(f), providing for jurisdiction over persons “living in a marital relationship

In May 2012, the Northern District of Ohio held that sufficient personal jurisdiction existed over a Swedish corporate defendant to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  In the memorandum opinion issued in Kate v. Artimplant USA, the court held that the exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with the constitutional rights to due process of the foreign defendant, a maker of medical devices and the parent of a US-based defendant in the lawsuit.  The court held the

The Eleventh Circuit holds that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a dissolved corporation has no principal place of business…

In 2011, Congress adopted changes to jurisdiction and venue rules in the federal court system.  The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 applies to all cases filed after January 6, 2012.   The act refines provisions relating to citizenship for the purposes of removal, removal deadlines and substantive requirements, and simplifies venue standards for domicile and changing venue.  Full text of the act is available from the Library of Congress. For more information