Bruntjen Esq. v. Van Exel

Background

Justin Andrew Bruntjen, a licensed Minnesota attorney, alleged that he represented Alfred Jackson in matters connected to Jackson’s inheritance from Prince’s estate. Bruntjen alleged that Raffles Van Exel sought to influence Jackson and helped cause Jackson to replace Bruntjen with WWB. Bruntjen also alleged that WWB filed a Missouri lawsuit accusing him of taking money from Jackson, that the lawsuit was dismissed five days later, and that media reports repeated the accusation.

Bruntjen asserted nine counts, including defamation, interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, civil conspiracy, and abuse of process. The motions addressed only defendants James W. Tippin & Associates and Keith Anthony Cutler, collectively called Tippin, and defendants White, Wiggins & Barnes, LLP, Ward Allen White IV, and Kennedy Lowell Barnes, collectively called WWB.

Tippin’s Motion

Tippin asked the court to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or alternatively for failure to state a claim. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear claims against a particular defendant. The court explained that this requires sufficient connections, or “minimum contacts,” between the defendant and Minnesota.

Cutler was licensed in Missouri, had never been licensed in Minnesota, did not visit Minnesota in connection with the Missouri lawsuit, and had no communications with Bruntjen about that lawsuit. Tippin’s role was limited to serving as WWB’s local counsel in Missouri. The court found that Tippin did not draft the relevant pleadings, investigate or supervise WWB’s work, or contact the media.

The court also found that the claims against Tippin arose from actions taken in Missouri, not Minnesota. Bruntjen’s Minnesota residence alone was insufficient. The court rejected Bruntjen’s argument that Tippin could be subject to jurisdiction through an alleged conspiracy because the complaint did not show that Tippin participated in the broader plan to replace Bruntjen as Jackson’s attorney. The court therefore found that Tippin lacked sufficient Minnesota contacts.

WWB’s Motion

WWB also challenged personal jurisdiction. The court found that WWB was not subject to general jurisdiction in Minnesota because it operated out of Texas, had no Minnesota office or property, did not advertise or solicit business there, and generally did not perform legal work there. However, the court concluded that the allegations supported specific jurisdiction, which applies when the claims arise from or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state.

The court found that Bruntjen sufficiently alleged that WWB participated in a conspiracy with Van Exel to end Bruntjen’s representation of Jackson and replace him with WWB. The court also found that the alleged conspiracy was aimed at Minnesota and that an alleged overt act in furtherance of it occurred in Minnesota when Van Exel traveled there and interacted with Jackson. The court therefore held that it had personal jurisdiction over WWB.

WWB alternatively argued that absolute immunity protected statements made in the Missouri lawsuit. Absolute immunity can protect statements made by attorneys or others in judicial proceedings when the statements are relevant to the litigation, even if the statements were allegedly false or malicious. Bruntjen argued that WWB was not representing Jackson when the Missouri lawsuit was filed.

The court found a factual dispute about whether WWB represented Jackson when it learned of the alleged missing money and when it filed the Missouri lawsuit. It also found factual disputes about whether the defendants knew, before filing the lawsuit, that Bruntjen had evidence showing he sent Jackson the money. Because these disputes could not be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court held that WWB had not shown that absolute immunity applied.

Disposition

Judge Michael J. Davis ordered that James W. Tippin & Associates and Keith Anthony Cutler’s motion to dismiss was granted. The court ordered that White, Wiggins & Barnes, LLP, Ward Allen White IV, and Kennedy Lowell Barnes’s motion to dismiss was denied. The order addressed the motions; it did not resolve the ultimate merits of Bruntjen’s claims against WWB.