## Facts

- May, a department store company headquartered in St. Louis, employed Heywood L. Wilansky as a senior executive under an agreement containing noncompetition and confidentiality restrictions.
- Wilansky resigned and accepted a position with Bon-Ton, a Pennsylvania-based retailer that May alleged was a competitor.
- May filed a two-count diversity action in the Eastern District of Missouri alleging (1) breach of contract against Wilansky and (2) tortious interference against Bon-Ton.
- After Wilansky notified May of his intent to resign, a May executive asked him to come to St. Louis to discuss the resignation; May sent a corporate jet to transport him from Texas to Missouri.
- May filed the complaint the same day and served Wilansky in St. Louis immediately after a meeting at May’s headquarters.
- May sought emergency injunctive relief; the court entered a stipulated order restricting Wilansky from using or disclosing May’s confidential information and permitted expedited discovery.
- A related action involving the same dispute was pending in Pennsylvania.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eastern District of Missouri had personal jurisdiction over Bon-Ton based on alleged interference with May’s employment contract.
2. Whether the Eastern District of Missouri had personal jurisdiction over Wilansky arising from his employment relationship with a Missouri-based company.
3. Whether personal service on Wilansky in Missouri was invalid because he was induced to enter the forum by deceptive tactics for the purpose of service.
4. Whether the action should be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the interest of justice.

## Decision

- The court held it lacked personal jurisdiction over Bon-Ton.
- The court held it had personal jurisdiction over Wilansky.
- The court quashed service of process on Wilansky because service was procured by inducing his travel to Missouri under false pretenses to accomplish service.
- The court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania rather than dismissing it.

## Legal Principles

- A forum may not exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation absent contacts showing purposeful availment and satisfaction of due process; an alleged out-of-state tort tied to a forum resident’s contract is insufficient without the defendant’s own forum-directed conduct.
- Specific jurisdiction may exist over an individual whose repeated forum-related business activities and contract-related conduct create minimum contacts and make litigation there foreseeable.
- Service of process may be quashed when a defendant is fraudulently induced to enter the forum for the sole purpose of being served, even if the court would otherwise have personal jurisdiction.
- Transfer is appropriate when it serves the interest of justice, including consolidating related litigation, avoiding inconsistent results, and placing the dispute in a forum with proper jurisdiction and practical access to witnesses and evidence.

## Conclusion

The court rejected Missouri as a forum for claims against Bon-Ton for lack of personal jurisdiction, refused to validate service on Wilansky obtained through deceptive inducement, and transferred the entire action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania to proceed in a forum capable of resolving the dispute as to all parties.


May Department Stores Co. v. Wilansky, 900 F. Supp. 1154 (E.D. Mo. 1995)