A 10-page order was issued by Presiding Judge Robert Naraja dated Nov. 5.
The case was heard on Feb. 17, 2009 where Bigelow Asset Management was represented by Larry Katz who appeared telephonically, and local counsel Colin Thompson.
UMDA was represented by David Luhan, Kathy Freeman, Robert O’Connor and Rodney Jacob. Timothy Bellas appeared on behalf of UMDA Laolao LLC.
The case stemmed from a series of events following UMDA’s disbursement of $676,000 to Sasquatch 11 which represented a 9.52 percent ownership interest in UMDA Laolao.
After receiving the payment, Sasquatch, through Mark Adams who is the manager of one of Sasquatch’s partners and the general counsel for Bigelow Asset Management or BAM notified the other entities that held the ownership in UMDA Laolao that they had received the payment.
Between e-mails of these entities, another defendant, Paul Dingee, surfaced asking why Bigelow got a distribution while no one else did.
As a result, Adams was asked by defendant John Larson to provide the details of the bank account where UMDA Laolao sent the distribution from.
Adams forwarded the information from the wire Sasquatch received from UMDA Laolao and forwarded it to Larson.
The documents stated that once Larson got the bank information, he began the “assault on Saipan” where he and the other defendants attempted to replace UMDA as the manager of UMDA Laolao with Paul Dingee.
Sasquatch also joined the removal effort on April 27, 2008.
The Bank of Hawaii later alerted UMDA of the attempt to remove the funds from UMDA Laolao’s bank accounts.
UMDA sought and was granted a temporary restraining order freezing the bank accounts.
The court then granted UMDA’s motion for preliminary injunction placing the disputed funds into court-controlled accounts, where the funds still remain.
In its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Bigelow Asset Management stated that the plaintiffs must establish evidence which would be admissible under evidentiary rules.
Bigelow Asset said that there are two categories of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants which are the general jurisdiction which is based on a continuous and systematic contact, and the specific jurisdiction which is related to the subject matter of the lawsuit.
In its ruling, the court states that the plaintiffs must first establish the foreseeable element of the Ninth Circuit’s test for specific jurisdiction.
In this case, the alleged contacts between Bigelow and the CNMI include the sharing of UMDA Laolao’s bank account information between Adams and other defendant entities, the representatives of these entities through e-mail and fax correspondence bearing the name Bigelow Asset Management.
The court said that there is ample evidence that Bigelow has no contacts with the CNMI.
The court ruled that it does not find that Bigelow has purposely availed itself through purposeful actions to establish adequate contacts with the commonwealth.
The court further stated that it is not convinced that Bigelow purposely directed activities at UMDA and UMDA Laolao and the residents of the CNMI as what the plaintiffs asserted.
The court held that “since Sasquatch recieved the payment and had UMDA Laolao’s bank account information, not Bigelow, Adams acted in his authority for Sasquatch to share that information and the plaintiffs have failed to provide any evidence to the contrary.”
Further, the court finds that personal jurisdiction over Bigelow fails for lack sufficient contacts with the commonwealth.
