Benson v. Family Tree Corporation, Inc.

Background

John Benson, representing himself, brought a diversity action seeking a declaration that would effectively determine ownership of mineral rights in 160 acres of North Dakota property. He alleged that Ann Kemske and Geri Benson sold, or attempted to sell, interests in the property to Family Tree Corporation and that Family Tree later transferred part of that interest to Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P. The validity of the sale had also been litigated in North Dakota state court.

Benson submitted a service form stating that Brigham Oil had been served by email and priority mail. After an entry of default was made against Brigham Oil, Benson moved for default judgment. Brigham Oil then appeared and moved to set aside the default and dismiss the complaint, arguing insufficient service, improper venue, and lack of personal jurisdiction.

Benson also served subpoenas on three North Dakota judicial officials connected to the earlier North Dakota litigation: Jodee Lawler, Carolyn Probst, and Judge Robin Schmidt. The subpoenas sought records and communications concerning that litigation. The officials moved to quash the subpoenas.

Personal jurisdiction over Brigham Oil

The court addressed personal jurisdiction first. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to exercise power over a particular defendant. Because Brigham Oil challenged personal jurisdiction, Benson had to make a preliminary showing that jurisdiction existed.

The court concluded that Benson had not made that showing. The mineral rights were located in North Dakota, Brigham Oil was not a party to the known deeds executed in Minnesota, and the record did not show that any transfer between Family Tree and Brigham Oil occurred in Minnesota. The court also rejected Benson’s reliance on his own connection to Minnesota, explaining that the plaintiff’s contacts with the state cannot substitute for contacts by the defendant.

The court likewise found no basis for general personal jurisdiction, which applies when a defendant’s continuous and systematic contacts make it essentially at home in the forum. The record did not show that Brigham Oil had such contacts with Minnesota or had targeted Minnesota in a way that would support jurisdiction.

Motions and disposition

The court concluded that Brigham Oil had to be dismissed because Benson had not made the required preliminary showing of personal jurisdiction. It therefore recommended that Brigham Oil’s motion to set aside the entry of default and dismiss the complaint be granted. It also recommended that Benson’s motion for default judgment be denied. The court expressly stated that these rulings were made without reaching the merits of those motions.

The court also determined that the subpoenaed information was irrelevant to the claims and defenses then at issue. The subpoenas concerned whether Benson had received a full and fair hearing in the North Dakota case, but Brigham Oil had not asserted issue preclusion as a defense, and the subpoenaed information did not bear on Brigham Oil’s jurisdictional arguments. The court granted the non-parties’ motion to quash and ordered that they need not respond to the subpoenas.

The report and recommendation stated that the recommendations were not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. It also stated that parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation.