Kyko Global Inc., et al. v. Omkar Bhongir

Petitioners’ Complaint was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014). Respondent was a California-based director of a corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania. Respondent electronically contacted his fellow corporate directors in Pennsylvania to create fraudulent accounts receivable in Pennsylvania to induce lenders, such as Petitioners, to lend money to the corporation. As a result, Petitioners suffered the loss of millions of dollars. Relying upon Walden, the lower courts both opined that Respondent’s electronic communications from California to his fellow corporate directors in Pennsylvania were insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Respondent notwithstanding that Pennsylvania statute 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5322(a)(7)(iv) expressly permits the assertion of personal jurisdiction over corporate directors for causes of action arising from their directorships. Petitioners’ Complaint was also dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction on a legal doctrine—the “Effects Test” set forth in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)—which Respondent failed to raise in his Motion to Dismiss and without the district court providing Petitioners an opportunity to address the Effects Test prior to dismissal of their Complaint. The questions before this Court are as follows: (1) Whether Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) nullifies Pennsylvania statute 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5322(a)(7)(iv)—and similar statutes and