Lisa,

Our earlier conversation related to the significant contacts test and the non-resident defendant.

With respect to the second point of your example, (the defendant or business located in court's territory) he would be deemed to be physically present within the State of Connecticut and not a non-resident. Consequently the significant contacts test does not apply. The Court has
in personam jurisdiction over the resident defendant.

There is a difference between in personam jurisdiction and in rem jurisdiction. Our earlier conversation related to the court's jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant (in personam jurisdiction) in order to have a binding judgment that attaches to the person and through which any or all of his non-exempt property could be seized to satisfy the judgment. In rem juridiction relates to the court's jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant's property located within the State of Connecticut. If the nonresident defendant is not physically present within Connecticut, but owns real or personal property in Connecticut, the court would have in rem jurisdiction over his property, but not in personam jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. It may even be argued that if he owns residential real estate in Connecticut in which he resides part of the time that he is not a nonresident.The satisfaction of the judgment would be limited to the defendant's property located within the borders of the State of Connecticut. If the defendant owns no real or personal property in Connecticut, the small claims court has neither in personam jurisdiction nor in rem jurisdiction.

When a foreign corporation or LLC wishes to transact business in Connecticut it is required to apply to the Secretary of State for a Certificate of Authority to do business within Connecticut. Without this certificate it does not have the right to initiate a suit in the Connecticut Court's. As part of the application process the foreign corporation or LLC appoints the Secretary of State as its agent to receive process, and in so doing submits to the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Court. As such the significant contact theory probably will not apply unless the defendant raises it as an issue because he has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, and is accorded the equal rights and obligations of a native corporation or LLC.

If the corporation or LLC is not physically located in Connecticut, has not applied for a Certificate of Authority (thereby submitting to the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Court), but has engaged in conduct that could be construed to be transacting business within Connecticut the long arm statute and the significant contacts test come into play. The first of your above examples talks of the incident upon which the claim is based occuring within the Court's territory. In so far as slander and libel actions are concerned the small claims court of Connecticut has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. (Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority granted by the State of Connecticut to rule on certain cases. It is necessary in addition to in personam or in rem jurisdiction.)

When the long arm statute and the significant contacts test come into play the defendant has the right to challenge the court's jurisdiction through a motion to dismiss which must be filed within a very short time after the defendant files an appearance in the case. At that time the defendant would argue the significant contacts issue. If the defendant succeeds and the case is dismissed, the case must be refiled in the defendant's state of citizenship. At that point the Plaintiff would have wasted his court filing fee, and now would have to go to the expense of filing the case a second time in the court of the defendant's state of citizenship. I believe I had indicated in one of my earlier posts that it has been my experience that the plaintiff will rarely have difficulty with venue or jurisdiction if he sues the defendant in the defendant's native state. This is because the significant contacts theory does not apply, and the defendant cannot move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on that basis. As such the Plaintiff does not run the risk of filing the case twice. Suing a non resident defendant in a state other than his native state when relying on the long arm statute and significant contacts test is a crap shoot at best. You pays your money, and you takes your chance. You could lose.

Each state has its own rules to use as legal precedent as to determining what conduct of the defendant does or does not constitute significant contacts such that the defendant could reasonably be expected to be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign court. In Connecticut the court cases which interpret the long arm statutes vary between contract cases and tort cases. Conduct of the defendant which may constitute significant contact in a tort suit may not constitute signicant contacts in a contract collection action. You have to research the case law (not a website) that interprets the long arm statute and significant contacts test to determine the court's position on what conduct of the defendant does or does not constitute significant contacts

Does this clarify the matter. I am getting kind of tired of discussing it?