On August 6, 2010, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma denied a
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where the defendants, who
were based out of
In determining that personal jurisdiction in
Next, the court considered whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable and does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. In analyzing 5 factors set forth by the 10th Circuit in OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Insurance Company of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 1998), the Court held as follows: 1) defendants would not be unduly burdened by having to defend themselves in Oklahoma, especially since the majority of the work required to mount an effective defense can be done from Tennessee through the use of modern technology; 2) Oklahoma has a strong interest in resolving the dispute because plaintiffs are Oklahoma residents; 3) plaintiffs could pursue their claims in Tennessee, so this factor weighed in the defendants favor; 4) Oklahoma or Tennessee would be viable forums to litigate the dispute, so this factor was neutral; and 5) Oklahoma exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendants would not in any way affect the substantive policy interests of Tennessee.
Thus the Court held that its exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction even though the defendants had not set foot in