Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment
lawsuitplaintiffdefendantjurisdictiondamagesmotionsummary judgmentmotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Herrera-Corral v. Hyman, 408 Ill.App.3d 672, 948 N.E.2d 242, 350 Ill.Dec. 173
View Case »
Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1997-2 Trade Cases P 71,962, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 188
View Case »
Santacroce v. Neff, 134 F.Supp.2d 366
View Case »
Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp., 914 F.2d 1564, 59 USLW 2222, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,500
View Case »
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.2d 490, 63 USLW 4303
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Langlois v. Deja Vu, Inc., 984 F.Supp. 1327

Facts

This case involves a group of nude and semi-nude dancers who filed a lawsuit in 1996 against both in-state and out-of-state adult entertainment clubs for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs sought back pay and damages, claiming that the defendants had failed to meet their obligations as employers. The out-of-state defendants contested the court's jurisdiction over them, leading to a motion for summary judgment regarding personal jurisdiction.

This case involves a group of nude and semi-nude dancers who filed a lawsuit in 1996 against both in-state and out-of-state adult entertainment clubs for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs sought back pay and damages, claiming that the defendants had failed to meet their obligations as employers. The out-of-state defendants contested the court's jurisdiction over them, leading to a motion for summary judgment regarding personal jurisdiction.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the District Court had personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants based on the plaintiffs' allegations and the defendants' contacts with Washington State.

The main legal issue was whether the District Court had personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants based on the plaintiffs' allegations and the defendants' contacts with Washington State.

Rule

The court applied a three-part test for specific jurisdiction, requiring proof that the out-of-state defendant initiated purposeful contacts with Washington, that the claims arose from those contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable.

The court applied a three-part test for specific jurisdiction, requiring proof that the out-of-state defendant initiated purposeful contacts with Washington, that the claims arose from those contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable.

Analysis

The court analyzed the plaintiffs' claims under the specific jurisdiction framework, determining that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts for most of the out-of-state defendants. The court found that while some defendants had sufficient contacts, others did not, and the plaintiffs' theories of jurisdictional fraud and economic integration were unpersuasive.

The court analyzed the plaintiffs' claims under the specific jurisdiction framework, determining that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts for most of the out-of-state defendants. The court found that while some defendants had sufficient contacts, others did not, and the plaintiffs' theories of jurisdictional fraud and economic integration were unpersuasive.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion for summary judgment in part, denying it as to Deja Vu, Inc. and Deja Vu Consulting, Inc., while granting it for all other defendants due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment in part, denying it as to Deja Vu, Inc. and Deja Vu Consulting, Inc., while granting it for all other defendants due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the out-of-state defendants, as the court granted their motion for summary judgment regarding personal jurisdiction over most of them.

The prevailing party was the out-of-state defendants, as the court granted their motion for summary judgment regarding personal jurisdiction over most of them.

You must be