Ee Hoong Liang v. Panircelvan Kaliannan, et al.

Personal Jurisdiction and Forum Non Conveniens

1. All the parties are citizens and residents of the Republic of Singapore, where they live, work, and shared their investment group in which the “untrue statements” and “sales” by Mr. Ee allegedly occurred. The Singaporean plaintiffs, however, represented by United States lawyers, sued their fellow Singaporean in the United States District Court, and the lower courts ruled that specific jurisdiction existed over Mr. Ee because he visited North Dakota once and emailed to his fellow group members pictures of the “man camps” in which they were all (Mr. Ee too) investing. Did this satisfy the “arise out of” or “relate to” aspects of the minimum contacts requirement?

2. Was the District Court required to assess principles of forum non conveniens in deciding whether it was “reasonable” for the United States court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the foreign Mr. Ee such that it did not “offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”? Summary Judgment Does Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 56 require a District Court to assess all the evidence a moving party presents on summary judgment, or may the court rely solely on “deemed admitted” Requests for Admissions obtained by default – even if the sales contracts and other proofs also attached to the motion belie the elements of the breach of contract and other claims on which the plaintiff demands judgment?