Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Template for Federal and State Court Proceedings

Practice Note: A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may challenge either subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), or both. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised at any time, including on appeal. Personal jurisdiction, however, must be raised in the first responsive pleading or pre-answer motion or it is waived under Rule 12(h)(1). Counsel must carefully distinguish between the two bases and ensure the personal jurisdiction defense is timely asserted.

CHECKLIST BEFORE FILING

☐ Identified the specific jurisdictional defect(s): subject matter, personal, or both
☐ Verified that a personal jurisdiction defense has not been waived under Rule 12(h)(1)
☐ Reviewed the complaint for any jurisdictional allegations that must be specifically challenged
☐ Researched the applicable long-arm statute for personal jurisdiction analysis
☐ Analyzed minimum contacts under the applicable constitutional standard
☐ Determined whether a facial or factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate
☐ Gathered supporting evidence (declarations, affidavits, exhibits) for factual challenges
☐ Reviewed local rules for motion format, page limits, and briefing schedule
☐ Conducted meet-and-confer with opposing counsel as required by local rules
☐ Confirmed this motion is filed before or with the answer (Rule 12(b))
☐ Confirmed ECF filing requirements and courtesy copy obligations
☐ Prepared proposed order for the court

CAPTION AND CASE INFORMATION

[________________________________]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[________________________________] DISTRICT OF [________________________________]

[________________________________],
Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. [________________________________]

[________________________________], Judge [________________________________]
Defendant(s).

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(2), Defendant [________________________________] ("Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court for an order dismissing the Complaint [and all claims asserted therein] for lack of [subject matter jurisdiction / personal jurisdiction / both subject matter and personal jurisdiction]. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

This Court lacks jurisdiction over this action because [________________________________]. [Select and customize:]

☐ Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)): The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because [the complaint does not present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 / the parties are not diverse and/or the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332 / the claim is barred by sovereign immunity / the plaintiff lacks Article III standing / [________________________________]].

☐ Personal Jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)): The Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant because [Defendant lacks minimum contacts with this forum / Defendant has not purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in this forum / the exercise of jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice / [________________________________]].

Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed [without prejudice / and the matter transferred to a court of proper jurisdiction].

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

1. Plaintiff [________________________________] filed this action on [__/__/____], alleging [________________________________].

2. Defendant [________________________________] is [a citizen of [________________________________] / incorporated in [________________________________] with its principal place of business in [________________________________] / an individual residing in [________________________________]].

3. [For personal jurisdiction challenges:] Defendant's contacts with the forum state of [________________________________] are as follows: [________________________________]. [Describe the absence of contacts, noting that Defendant does not maintain offices, employees, agents, property, bank accounts, or other connections in the forum state, or describe the limited nature of any contacts.]

4. [For subject matter jurisdiction challenges:] [Describe the jurisdictional defect, such as: Both parties are citizens of [________________________________], defeating diversity jurisdiction. / The claims arise solely under state law and do not present a federal question. / The amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.]

5. [Additional relevant facts regarding the jurisdictional challenge.]

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1) - Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a motion to dismiss for "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party asserting it -- here, the Plaintiff. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) ("Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.").

A motion under Rule 12(b)(1) may challenge jurisdiction on the face of the complaint (a "facial attack") or may challenge the factual basis for jurisdiction (a "factual attack"):

• Facial Attack: The court accepts the complaint's allegations as true and determines whether they are sufficient to establish jurisdiction. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).

• Factual Attack: The court may consider evidence outside the pleadings, including affidavits, depositions, and testimony, to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence. See Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977).

Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or forfeited and may be raised at any time, even on appeal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).

B. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(2) - Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) authorizes a motion to dismiss for "lack of personal jurisdiction." When personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76 (1985).

The constitutional framework for personal jurisdiction is rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the landmark decision of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945), which requires that a defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice."

Two categories of personal jurisdiction exist:

1. General Jurisdiction

A court may exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant whose contacts with the forum are "so continuous and systematic as to render [the defendant] essentially at home in the forum State." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014). For corporations, this typically means only the state of incorporation and the state where the corporation has its principal place of business. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011).

2. Specific Jurisdiction

Specific jurisdiction exists when the lawsuit arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum. The inquiry involves a three-part test:

1. Purposeful Availment: The defendant must have "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958).

2. Relatedness: The claims must "arise out of or relate to the defendant's contacts with the forum." Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017); Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021).

3. Reasonableness: The exercise of jurisdiction must comport with "fair play and substantial justice." Factors include: (a) the burden on the defendant; (b) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (c) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (d) the interstate judicial system's interest in efficient resolution; and (e) the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292 (1980).

3. Long-Arm Statutes

In federal court, personal jurisdiction is determined by reference to the law of the state in which the district court sits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). The court must first determine whether the forum state's long-arm statute is satisfied, and then whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014).

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1))

[Select and customize applicable subsections:]

1. No Federal Question Jurisdiction Exists

Plaintiff's claims arise solely under state law. The Complaint does not allege any violation of federal statute, federal regulation, or the United States Constitution. There is no substantial federal question embedded in the state-law claims, nor does the case require resolution of a disputed and substantial federal issue. See Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Accordingly, this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. No Diversity Jurisdiction Exists

This Court lacks diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because [________________________________]:

☐ Incomplete Diversity: [Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of [________________________________]. Complete diversity of citizenship is lacking as required by Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806).]

☐ Insufficient Amount in Controversy: [The amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Plaintiff's complaint alleges damages of approximately $[________________________________], which falls below the jurisdictional threshold.]

3. Plaintiff Lacks Article III Standing

Plaintiff cannot satisfy the constitutional standing requirements of Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution. Under Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

[________________________________] [Explain how the plaintiff fails to satisfy one or more prongs of the standing analysis.]

4. Sovereign Immunity Bars This Action

[________________________________] [If applicable, explain how sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment or other doctrine deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction.]

B. The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant (Rule 12(b)(2))

1. General Jurisdiction Does Not Exist

Defendant is not "at home" in [________________________________]. Defendant is [incorporated in [________________________________] / has its principal place of business in [________________________________] / resides in [________________________________]]. Defendant does not maintain systematic and continuous contacts with this forum sufficient to establish general jurisdiction under Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. at 127.

[________________________________] [Detail the absence of contacts: no offices, no employees, no agents, no property, no bank accounts, no registered agent, no ongoing business activities in the forum state.]

2. Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist

Even if general jurisdiction is lacking, this Court also lacks specific jurisdiction over Defendant because:

a. Defendant Did Not Purposefully Avail Itself of This Forum

[________________________________] [Explain why the defendant did not deliberately target or direct activities toward the forum state. Address whether any contacts were unilateral actions of the plaintiff or third parties, not the defendant. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. at 284.]

b. Plaintiff's Claims Do Not Arise From Contacts With This Forum

[________________________________] [Explain why the claims do not arise out of or relate to any contacts the defendant may have with the forum state.]

c. The Exercise of Jurisdiction Would Be Unreasonable

Even if minimum contacts were established, the exercise of jurisdiction would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice because [________________________________]. [Address the five reasonableness factors from World-Wide Volkswagen.]

3. The Forum State's Long-Arm Statute Is Not Satisfied

The forum state's long-arm statute, [________________________________] [cite specific statute, e.g., N.Y. CPLR § 302, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042, Fla. Stat. § 48.193], does not reach Defendant's conduct because [________________________________].

C. The Appropriate Remedy Is Dismissal [or Transfer]

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, the Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice. [Alternatively, if venue is proper in another court:] In the alternative, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court transfer the action to the [________________________________] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 [or 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)], where jurisdiction and venue are proper.

V. CERTIFICATE OF CONFERRAL

Pursuant to Local Rule [________________________________], undersigned counsel certifies that on [__/__/____], counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel for Plaintiff regarding the relief sought in this motion. [Plaintiff's counsel opposes the motion. / The parties were unable to resolve this dispute without court intervention.]

VI. REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Dismiss the Complaint and all claims asserted therein, without prejudice, for lack of [subject matter / personal] jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(2);

2. In the alternative, transfer this action to the [________________________________], where jurisdiction and venue are proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 [or § 1404(a)];

3. Vacate any orders entered without proper jurisdiction;

4. Award Defendant its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this motion, to the extent permitted by law; and

5. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: [__/__/____]

________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney for Defendant [________________________________]
[________________________________] (Firm Name)
[________________________________] (Address)
[________________________________] (City, State, ZIP)
[________________________________] (Telephone)
[________________________________] (Facsimile)
[________________________________] (Email)
Bar No. [________________________________]

DECLARATION OF [________________________________] IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS

I, [________________________________], declare as follows:

1. I am [________________________________] [the Defendant in this action / an officer of Defendant [________________________________]]. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto.

2. [For personal jurisdiction challenges, state facts regarding the defendant's lack of contacts with the forum state:]

a. [Defendant / I] [am/is] [a citizen of [________________________________] / incorporated in [________________________________] / headquartered in [________________________________]].

b. [Defendant / I] [do/does] not maintain an office, place of business, warehouse, or other facility in [________________________________].

c. [Defendant / I] [do/does] not employ any persons in [________________________________].

d. [Defendant / I] [do/does] not own, lease, or control any real property in [________________________________].

e. [Defendant / I] [do/does] not maintain a bank account or other financial accounts in [________________________________].

f. [Defendant / I] [do/does] not have a registered agent for service of process in [________________________________].

g. [________________________________] [Additional facts relevant to the jurisdictional challenge.]

3. [For subject matter jurisdiction challenges, state relevant facts regarding citizenship, amount in controversy, or other jurisdictional defects.]

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on [__/__/____] at [________________________________], [________________________________].

________________________________________
[________________________________]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, together with all exhibits and attachments, upon all counsel of record and/or parties by the following method(s):

☐ CM/ECF Electronic Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record registered with the Court's electronic filing system

☐ United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, addressed to:

☐ Hand Delivery to:

☐ Overnight/Express Delivery Service to:

☐ Facsimile to:

☐ Email to:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney for Defendant [________________________________]

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

[________________________________]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[________________________________] DISTRICT OF [________________________________]

[________________________________],
Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. [________________________________]

[________________________________], Judge [________________________________]
Defendant(s).

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Defendant [________________________________]'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)([____]), and the Court having considered the motion, [Plaintiff's opposition,] [Defendant's reply,] the declarations and exhibits submitted in connection therewith, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of [Subject Matter / Personal] Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

2. The Complaint and all claims asserted therein are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of [subject matter / personal] jurisdiction.

[ALTERNATIVE: The action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the [________________________________] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 / § 1404(a).]

3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: [__/__/____]

________________________________________
Hon. [________________________________]
United States District Judge / [State] Court Judge

JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC NOTES

Federal Courts

• Subject Matter Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1332): Federal courts have limited jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction requires a claim arising under federal law. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between parties and amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.
• Rule 12(h)(3): Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and the court has an independent obligation to ensure it has jurisdiction. See Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011).
• Rule 12(h)(1): Personal jurisdiction is waived if not raised in the first responsive pleading or pre-answer motion.
• Rule 4(k): Establishes territorial limits of effective service and ties personal jurisdiction analysis to the law of the state where the district court sits.

California

• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10: California's long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to the fullest extent permitted by the Due Process Clause. The statutory and constitutional analyses are therefore coextensive.
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10: A defendant may file a motion to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. This motion must be filed before or concurrently with the answer.
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 396: If the court lacks jurisdiction, it may transfer the action to a proper court.
• Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 434 (1996): Leading California case on specific jurisdiction analysis.

Texas

• Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042: Texas long-arm statute. Authorizes personal jurisdiction over nonresidents who (1) transact business in Texas, (2) commit a tort in whole or in part in Texas, or (3) recruit Texas residents for employment.
• Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a: Governs special appearances for lack of personal jurisdiction. A special appearance must be filed before any other plea, pleading, or motion, or it is waived.
• BMC Software, Inc. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002): Texas applies a two-step analysis -- whether the long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction and whether due process is satisfied.

Florida

• Fla. Stat. § 48.193: Florida's long-arm statute. Provides for both specific jurisdiction (§ 48.193(1)) and general jurisdiction (§ 48.193(2)). Unlike California, Florida's statute does not extend to the full limits of due process, so both statutory and constitutional analyses are required.
• Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b): Defendant must raise lack of jurisdiction as a defense in the answer or by pre-answer motion, or it is waived (for personal jurisdiction).
• Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1989): Leading Florida case establishing the two-step analysis under the long-arm statute.

New York

• N.Y. CPLR § 301: General jurisdiction exists over persons and entities "present" in New York.
• N.Y. CPLR § 302: New York's long-arm statute. Provides for specific jurisdiction based on: (a)(1) transacting business; (a)(2) committing a tortious act in the state; (a)(3) committing a tortious act outside the state causing injury within the state (with additional requirements); (a)(4) owning real property in New York.
• N.Y. CPLR § 3211(a)(2) and (8): Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction, respectively.
• LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210 (2000): New York analyzes personal jurisdiction separately under the long-arm statute and due process; satisfying the statute does not automatically satisfy due process.

PRACTICE TIPS

1. Preserve the Defense: Personal jurisdiction must be raised in the first responsive pleading or pre-answer motion or it is permanently waived. Subject matter jurisdiction, by contrast, can never be waived. If in doubt, include both defenses.

2. File a Declaration: For personal jurisdiction challenges, a declaration from the defendant detailing the absence of contacts with the forum state is essential. Without supporting evidence, courts may deny the motion.

3. Distinguish Facial vs. Factual Attacks: For subject matter jurisdiction, clearly identify whether you are making a facial challenge (accepted allegations do not establish jurisdiction) or a factual challenge (the jurisdictional facts are disputed). The standard of review differs significantly.

4. Research the Long-Arm Statute: In federal court, personal jurisdiction is governed by the forum state's long-arm statute. Some states (e.g., California) extend jurisdiction to the limits of due process; others (e.g., New York, Florida) have more specific statutory requirements.

5. Consider Transfer as an Alternative: Courts may be more receptive to a motion that offers transfer to a proper forum as an alternative to outright dismissal, particularly where the statute of limitations may bar refiling.

6. Address Recent Supreme Court Developments: Recent decisions such as Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021), and Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), have refined the personal jurisdiction framework. Counsel should address these developments where relevant.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 - Defenses and Objections
• 28 U.S.C. § 1331 - Federal Question Jurisdiction
• 28 U.S.C. § 1332 - Diversity Jurisdiction
• International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
• Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014)
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 582 U.S. 255 (2017)
• Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351 (2021)
• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Full Text - December 2024)