Background
Jonathan Moris, a Connecticut resident and shareholder, sued Invata Holdings, a Pennsylvania corporation, seeking damages for breach of a shareholders’ agreement, breach of an employment agreement, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unpaid wages. Moris had entered into a shareholders’ agreement with Glen Road Systems, Inc. (a Pennsylvania corporation) in 2012 after a merger with Invata, Inc., the Connecticut entity he had co-incorporated in 2010. He became a 19% shareholder and claimed Invata Holdings later agreed to be bound by that agreement.
In 2020, Invata, Inc. underwent a reorganization in which existing shareholders, including Moris, formed Invata Holdings as a Pennsylvania holding company and transferred their shares. Moris served as a shareholder and director. Beginning in April 2020, Moris’s salary was reduced due to COVID-19, but was never restored. After repeated requests for payment and a proposed buyout went unanswered, Moris sued in Connecticut in 2023. Invata Holdings moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. Although the court found the long arm statute authorized jurisdiction under the shareholders’ agreement provision, it held that exercising jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause for lack of sufficient minimum contacts. The court applied the specific jurisdiction test, requiring that the defendant purposefully avail itself of the forum state and that the claim arise from those contacts.
The court rejected each of Moris’s contact arguments. The shareholders’ agreement, while executed in Connecticut, specified Pennsylvania law, designated Pennsylvania for notices, and contemplated multi-state shareholder involvement—raising questions about whether Invata Holdings could foresee being sued in Connecticut. Retention of Connecticut counsel for the 2020 reorganization, use of Connecticut phone numbers, Moris’s own residence and shareholder status, and income derived through Invata, LLC did not constitute purposeful availment by Invata Holdings itself. The court emphasized that a defendant’s contacts with the forum, not the plaintiff’s, are relevant. It also rejected Moris’s argument that Invata, LLC’s Connecticut operations should be imputed to Invata Holdings, finding that parent and subsidiary are separate legal entities.
Key Takeaways
- In assessing personal jurisdiction, courts examine the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, not those of the plaintiff or third parties. The plaintiff’s residence in the forum is insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
- A shareholders’ agreement alone does not establish minimum contacts, particularly where the agreement specifies another state’s law, designates another state for performance and notices, and involves multi-state signatories.
- Parent corporations and their subsidiaries remain separate legal entities for jurisdictional purposes; a parent cannot be haled into court based on a subsidiary’s forum contacts without piercing the corporate veil.
- A single act of retaining local counsel for a corporate reorganization does not establish purposeful availment sufficient to confer jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the stringent minimum contacts standard for specific jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, particularly in corporate contexts. It clarifies that multistate corporations cannot evade the traditional jurisdictional limits of the International Shoe test by pointing to plaintiff-centric factors or the mere existence of historical ties through predecessor entities. Businesses restructuring across state lines should note that where successor entities are incorporated out-of-state, the jurisdictional contacts of predecessor entities do not automatically transfer.
For practitioners, the case underscores the importance of contract drafting—choice of law and venue provisions significantly influence jurisdictional analysis. Courts will look to whether the defendant deliberately reached into the forum state and created continuing obligations, not merely whether coincidental contacts exist. This standard protects out-of-state defendants from random litigation exposure while preserving Connecticut’s jurisdiction where businesses genuinely target the state.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.