Native American Guardian's Association v. Washington Commanders et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
EASTERN DIVISION
Native American Guardian’s Association, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
vs. )
) Case No. 3:23-cv-186
Washington Commanders, et al, )
)
Defendants. )
Defendants Josh Harris and the Washington Commanders (together, the “Commanders”)
move to dismiss the Plaintiff Native American Guardian’s Association’s (“NAGA”) complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and for failure to state
a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. 31. Defendant Matthew Laux also
moves to dismiss on similar grounds. Doc. 28. For the reasons below, the motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction are granted.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
NAGA filed this action alleging defamation by Laux and the Commanders. Doc. 1. The
complaint also alleges civil conspiracy and conspiracy to violate civil rights against Harris, the
Commanders, and the National Congress of American Indians (“NCAI”). Id. The NCAI was later
voluntarily dismissed. Doc. 41.
NAGA is a Virginia non-profit organization.1 Doc. 23-2. NAGA’s stated goal is to “ensure
that Native American’s rich history remain alive in the hearts and minds of all Americans.” Doc.
1 at 2. NAGA’s president resides in Devil’s Lake, North Dakota, and it claims North Dakota is its
principal place of business. Doc. 23-2 at 3.
1 The complaint alleges NAGA is a North Dakota corporation (Doc. 1 at 11), but NAGA is
incorporated in Virginia. Doc. 23-2.
Case 3:23-cv-00186-PDW-ARS Document 47 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 8

2
The Commanders are a professional football team and are a member of the National
Football League (“NFL”). Doc. 34 at 2. The entity that owns the Commanders is Pro-Football
LLC. Doc. 33 at 2. Pro-Football is a Maryland limited liability corporation with a principal place
of business in Virginia. Id. Josh Harris is part of Pro-Football and is the managing partner of the
team. Doc. 34 at 1. He lives in Florida and has no contacts with North Dakota. Doc. 34 at 1-3.
Matthew Laux is an employee of the Commanders. Doc. 30 at 2. Laux lives in Maryland. Id. at 1.
Laux has no contacts with North Dakota (id. at 1-2) except that he recalls traveling to North Dakota
once for a wrestling tournament when he was in high school. Id. at 1.
Following a long public debate, the Washington Redskins changed the name of their
football team to the Washington Commanders.2 NAGA publicly advocated against the name
change because it believes the prior name honors Native American culture. Doc. 1 at 2-3. In 2023,
NAGA encouraged individuals to sign a petition demanding the Commanders change their name
back to the Washington Redskins. Id.
After the name change, Christina King, a former luxury box ticket owner, boycotted the
team and stopped purchasing a luxury box for the Commanders home football games. Doc. 1 at
10. In 2023, Laux reached out to King about purchasing a luxury box again. Id. King refused and
brought the NAGA petition to Laux’s attention. Id. at 11. In response, NAGA alleges Laux called
the organization a “fake group.” Doc. 1 at 4. Eventually, Fox News reported the conversation. Id.
at 11. That alleged statement is the basis for the defamation claim.
As to civil conspiracy, NAGA alleges the Commanders entered into an agreement to
further defame NAGA when Harris contacted NCAI and directed them to issue a false press release
2 The team stopped using the name Redskins in 2020 and was known as the Washington Football
Team until adopting the Commanders name in 2022. Doc. 33 at 2.
Case 3:23-cv-00186-PDW-ARS Document 47 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 8

3
concerning the ongoing debate about the name of the football team. Id. at 13. And as to the alleged
conspiracy to violate civil rights, NAGA alleges the Commanders “conspired to deprive NAGA
and its members of the privileges and immunities derived from their national origin, as Native
Americans, by working together to silence NAGA entirely.” Id. at 18-19.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Laux and the Commanders move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). A plaintiff must allege sufficient facts in the complaint
supporting a reasonable inference that the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 607 F.3d 515, 518 (8th Cir. 2010). When
personal jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff “must make a prima facie showing that personal
jurisdiction exists, which is accomplished by pleading sufficient facts to support a reasonable
inference that the defendant can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state.” K-V Pharm. Co. v.
J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 591-92 (8th Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). A prima facie showing
must be “tested” by “affidavits and exhibits supporting or opposing the motion.” Id. at 592. The
evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, with all factual conflicts in its
favor. Id. Personal jurisdiction in a diversity case exists to the extent permitted by the long-arm
statute of the state. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985). North Dakota’s
long-arm statute authorizes courts to exercise jurisdiction to the fullest extent allowed by the Due
Process Clause. Hansen v. Scott, 2002 ND 101, ¶ 16, 645 N.W.2d 223.
When a state construes its long-arm statute to grant jurisdiction to the fullest extent
permitted by the Constitution, the question is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction
comports with due process. Johnson v. Woodcock, 444 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 2006). “Due
Process requires minimum contacts between [a] non-resident defendant and the forum state such
Case 3:23-cv-00186-PDW-ARS Document 47 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 8

4
that maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-92 (1980). A non-resident
defendant’s contacts with a forum state, for example, must be sufficient to cause the defendant to
“reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Epps v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 327 F.3d
642, 648 (8th Cir. 2003).
Personal jurisdiction can be specific or general. “Specific jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction
over causes of action arising from or related to a defendant’s actions within the forum state, while
general jurisdiction . . . refers to the power of a state to adjudicate any cause of action involving a
particular defendant, regardless of where the cause of action arose.” Miller v. Nippon Carbon Co.,
528 F.3d 1087, 1091 (8th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). NAGA has not advanced an argument that North
Dakota has general jurisdiction (Doc. 42), so the issue is whether it can establish specific
jurisdiction.
A. Specific Jurisdiction
A five-factor test is used for measuring minimum contacts in assessing personal
jurisdiction over a defendant:
(1) the nature and quality of a defendants’ contacts with a forum state; (2) the
quantity of such contacts; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4)
the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the
convenience of the parties.
Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1073-74 (8th Cir. 2004). In determining whether a
defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state to exercise personal jurisdiction, the court
must consider all of the contacts in the aggregate and examine the totality of the circumstances.
Northrup King Co. v. Compania Productora Semillas Algoddoneras Selectas, S.A., 51 F.3d 1383,
1388 (8th Cir. 1995). However, “significant weight” is given to the first three factors. Romak USA,
Inc. v. Rich, 384 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2004).
Case 3:23-cv-00186-PDW-ARS Document 47 Filed 04/02/24 Page 4 of 8

5
1. Nature and Quality of Contacts
In examining the nature and quality of the contacts, the primary issue is whether the non-
resident defendant has “fair warning that a particular activity may subject a person to the
jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.” Gould v. P.T. Krakatau Steel, 957 F.2d 573, 576 (8th Cir.
1992). Here, Laux, Harris, and the Commanders have essentially no contact with North Dakota.
They do not reside, work, or transact any business in North Dakota, and they have never traveled
to North Dakota during the time at issue in this case. As to Laux, it is difficult to comprehend how
he could have fair warning that he would be subject to North Dakota jurisdiction when he made a
statement in Maryland, to a woman in the Washington D.C. area,3 about a group that was
incorporated in Virginia, concerning the name of a football team that plays games in Washington
D.C. The same is true for the Commanders.
For the Court to have specific jurisdiction, the connection(s) to North Dakota must be
“deliberate” and “substantial.” Viasystems, Inc. v. EBM-Papst St. Georgen GmbH & Co., KG,
646 F.3d 589, 594 (8th Cir. 2011). While it is alleged that the president of NAGA resides in North
Dakota and the organization may have a principal place of business in North Dakota, any contact
Laux and the Commanders had with North Dakota, at best, was incidental. See e.g., id. (incidental
contact such as an email, phone call, and wire transfer was not enough to trigger personal
jurisdiction). On this record, there is nothing to indicate that Laux or the Commanders had “fair
warning” that their activities may subject them to the jurisdiction of North Dakota. So, the first
factor weighs against exercising personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
3 Ms. King’s exact location is not known, but she was likely in the Washington D.C. area (Doc.
30 at 2), and there is no allegation she was in North Dakota.
Case 3:23-cv-00186-PDW-ARS Document 47 Filed 04/02/24 Page 5 of 8

6
2. Quantity of the Contacts
The second factor looks at the quantity of the contacts. Specific jurisdiction may arise from
a single contact with the forum state. Fulton v. Chicago, Rock Island & P.R. Co., 481 F.2d 326,
334-36 (8th Cir. 1973). That happens when the extraterritorial defendant is aware that an action
will occur in a certain jurisdiction. Id. at 335. But that is not the case here. Laux and the
Commanders are each alleged to have one incidental contact with North Dakota through actions
that were not directed at the state. There is nothing in the record to suggest that any of the
Defendants had knowledge that their actions would potentially have an effect in North Dakota.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1025 (2021) (contacts with
a state must be the defendant’s intent and not random or isolated.). The second factor also weighs
against exercising personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
3. Relation of Contacts to the Cause of Action
The third factor looks at the relation of the contacts to the cause of action. Here courts must
consider whether a claim arises out of or in relation to the defendant’s contacts. See Kaliannan v.
Hoong Liang, 2 F.4th 727, 733 (8th Cir. 2021); see also Bros. & Sisters in Christ, LLC v. Zazzle,
Inc., 42 F.4th 948, 952 (8th Cir. 2022). The only contacts to North Dakota are that Laux once
visited North Dakota for a wrestling tournament (while in high school) and that the Commanders
occasionally scout football players in North Dakota and sell tickets to North Dakota residents.
None of the claims in this case are alleged to have occurred in North Dakota, and the claims do
not arise from the Defendants’ alleged contact with North Dakota. So, the third factor also weighs
against exercising personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.
Case 3:23-cv-00186-PDW-ARS Document 47 Filed 04/02/24 Page 6 of 8

7
4. The Interest of North Dakota in Providing a Forum
As noted above, in the Eighth Circuit, the first three factors are of “primary importance” in
determining personal jurisdiction, and the last two factors are of “secondary importance.” Stanton
v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 340 F.3d 690, 694 (8th Cir. 2003). The fourth factor considers the interest
of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents. Dever, 380 F.3d at 1073-74. Even taking
NAGA as a citizen of North Dakota (though it is a Virginia company), North Dakota has no interest
in adjudicating this dispute. The facts at issue involve a football team from Washington D.C., a
statement made in Maryland, and an alleged conspiracy between an owner of the football team
and a non-profit group that is a citizen of Oklahoma. North Dakota’s interest in providing a forum
is minimum at best. See Nuevos Destinos, LLC v. Peck, 2020 WL 6318219, at *9 (D.N.D. Mar.
10, 2020) (finding “North Dakota had no conceivable interest” in adjudicating a dispute based on
actions that occurred outside North Dakota that were not specifically directed at North Dakota,
even if the plaintiff was a corporate citizen of North Dakota).
5. The Convenience of the Parties
The final factor considers the convenience of the parties. See Johnson, 444 F.3d at 956.
But this factor too weighs against exercising personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. The
individuals and organizations involved in the alleged defamation and conspiracies are not located
in North Dakota. The actions alleged in the complaint occurred entirely outside of North Dakota.
All witnesses would need to travel to North Dakota from other states. North Dakota is an
inconvenient forum for all of the parties and weighs against exercising personal jurisdiction over
the Defendants. Individually and collectively, on the facts of this case, all five factors weigh against
exercising personal jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants.
Case 3:23-cv-00186-PDW-ARS Document 47 Filed 04/02/24 Page 7 of 8

8
B. Calder Effects Test
The same result is warranted under the Calder effects test. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S.
783 (1984). To meet this test, NAGA must show that the brunt of the injury would be felt in North
Dakota and that the Defendants intentionally targeted this state. Steinbuch, 518 F.3d at 586;
Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 796 (8th Cir. 2010). The Calder effects test “allows the assertion
of personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants whose acts are performed for the very
purpose of having their consequences felt in the forum state.” Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota
Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1390-91 (8th Cir. 1991) (cleaned up).
Here, there is no indication that the alleged defamatory statement or the alleged
conspiracies were directed at North Dakota or intended to cause an injury that would be felt in
North Dakota. Simply put, there are no contacts with North Dakota alleged in the complaint or
affidavits that are sufficient to exercise personal jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court has carefully considered the entire record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant
case law. Because there is no basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants, Laux’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. 28) and the
Commanders’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. 31) are GRANTED. Given
that, the Court need not address the plausibility of NAGA’s claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated this 2nd day of April, 2024.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:23-cv-00186-PDW-ARS Document 47 Filed 04/02/24 Page 8 of 8