Shawn D. Nines
How Judge Nines decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a challenge to personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, he looks past whether the defendant's own conduct touched West Virginia directly and asks whether the defendant built a network or program that was designed to funnel business to a West Virginia company -- deliberately structuring a relationship that reaches into the state is enough, even if the actual contact was initiated by a third party (a member or a health-care provider) exercising independent choice.
“It was Third-Party Defendants' deliberate choice to do business with a company in another state. ... If as claimed, Third-Party Defendants advertised to their subscribers that they could use MedTest's services and be covered, and failed to pay for those services, then the Third-Party Defendants should have been aware that they could cause injury in West Virginia to the West Virginia corporation and should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in West Virginia.”
Procedural preferences
On a multi-party jurisdictional motion, he works through the full constitutional test methodically -- minimum contacts, relatedness, and the multi-factor reasonableness inquiry -- rather than resolving the motion on a single threshold ground, even where an early finding (like established minimum contacts) might otherwise end the analysis.
“Now that the Court has found that Third-Party Plaintiffs have established personal jurisdiction under West Virginia's long arm statutes, the Court will next examine whether Third-Party Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Blues have minimum contacts with West Virginia for the purposes of federal due process.”
Cautions
An out-of-state defendant that argues its only link to West Virginia was another party's independent choice should expect the court to look at whether the defendant's own business design (a directory, a network, a program) was what made that choice possible in the first place -- disclaiming responsibility for a downstream actor's decision is a weak argument if the defendant built the very mechanism the downstream actor used.
“The Court, however, concludes that these instances of contact with West Virginia could have occurred when a member or their health care provider relied on the Blues' representations in online directories and lists of covered providers that indicated these instances of contact with West Virginia would be covered health services. ... Therefore, the Third-Party Defendants themselves would have created the connection with West Virginia, by putting MedTest on their online directory and/or lists.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Third-Party Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Defendant MedTest's First Amended Third-Party Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is hereby DENIED. It is hereby further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Third-Party Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is hereby DENIED.”
Put Judge Nines's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Nines actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Nines's own signed orders and cites them.