Law Case

I am writing on behalf of my client, Carol Caris, whose employment through Megahealth Services Group, Inc. was recently terminated. My client recently accepted employment as supply room supervisor at Golden Years Nursing Home, where she was previously working through an independent contract with Megahealth. Although her previous contract stated that she was prohibited from working for a client of Megahealth for a period of three years, I urge you to reconsider your recent threat to file suit against Ms. Caris on the basis that the courts of Madison County, Pennsylvania do not have jurisdiction.

The courts of Madison County, Pennsylvania do not have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Caris. In order for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident such as Ms. Caris, there must be "minimum contacts" between her and Pennsylvania (Kenny). Ms. Caris has resided in State X throughout her entire life, and has never been a resident of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Because of her desperate situation, she was forced to sign a contract with Megahealth in order to gain employment working at Golden Years Nursing Home. Ms. Caris signed the contract in her home state of State X, as did Megahealth. In no way did Ms. Caris purposefully avail herself to any privileges or benefits in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which would be required to have minimum contacts with Pennsylvania. Just as in Kenny, where the defendant was not a resident of Pennsylvania, nor conducted any continuous business activity in Pennsylvania, our client cannot be seen to fall under personal jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the aforementioned reasons.

In addition, it must be reasonable and fair for Ms. Caris to conduct a defense in Pennsylvania, and it is unlikely that this is the case. Although the contract between Ms. Caris and Megahealth had a provision prohibiting her from working for a client of Megahealth for three years, this is unlikely to be binding. Just as in Third Century, where both appellants were unaware of such a clause having not read it, our client was unaware of this clause in the contract. In both Third Century and the case at hand, the contracts were necessary to complete the transaction/employment, leaving no choice but to sign the contract anyway. This clause in Third Century was not binding, as it was not found to be reasonable to have to defend a suit in Pennsylvania when it would be more expensive than to just pay the defaut judgment. Just as it was found unreasonable in that case, it will likely be found the same in the case at hand. In order for Ms. Caris to defend a suit in Pennsylvania, she would have to drive 70 miles and then take a three-hour plane ride, or drive over twelve hours to Madison County. This is far too unreasonable to defend a suit in a forum which she has no minimum contacts, nor resides in. It would be far more reasonable

...