Antitrust: Price Manipulation Court Jursidiction, Procedure and Review: Personal Jurisdiction Constitutional Law: Due Process; Minimum Contacts

摘要

This case involves one of the many claims filed against multiple defendants for their alleged role in manipulating the price of natural gas during the 2000-2002 time frame. This particular case is originally filed in a Wisconsin trial court and then is removed to the federal district court in Wisconsin and then transferred by order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. This opinion deals with the motion of Reliant Energy, Inc. (REI), one of the defendants, to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. REI, as it exists at the time of the litigation, is not the REI as existed at the time of the alleged price manipulation activities. REI does have a wholly owned subsidiary that sold natural gas to a number of public utilities in Wisconsin in the 2001-2002 time frame. The relationship between REI and its subsidiary involves some level of control by REI over the corporate policies of that subsidiary. Both REI and its subsidiary execute a settlement agreement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission relating to activities in the 2001-2002 time frame and both pay a civil penalty. After the filing of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show that the defendant falls within the scope of the state's long-arm statute and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction will not violate the due process rights of the defendant. Under the due process standard of requiring "minimum contacts" by a party before they may be subject to personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have purposefully availed himself of the benefits of the forum or engaged in actions within the forum that form the basis of the claim. In reviewing the summary judgment evidence, the court concludes that REI's contacts with Wisconsin do not meet either of the minimum contacts tests, although the actions of the subsidiary clearly do. That requires the court to determine whether or not it needs to pierce the corporate veil under an alter ego analysis so that the actions of the subsidiary may be attributed to REI. While there is some evidence of ties between REI and its subsidiary, there is insufficient evidence to show that the subsidiary was not independent of REI's control so that REI is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin.