Riggins v. O'Brien , 101 F. App'x 395 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2372
ROBERT JOHN RIGGINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARY LOUISE O’BRIEN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-313-A)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 15, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry M. Phillips, PHILLIPS, BECKWITH, HALL & CHASE, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Watson, II, COLTEN CUMMINS
WATSON & VINCENT, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert John Riggins appeals the district court’s order
affirming the magistrate judge’s order granting Mary Louise
O’Brien’s motion to quash service and dismissing Riggins’ action.
Riggins contends that the enforcement of his child support contract
constituted “transacting any business” pursuant to the Virginia
Long Arm Statute, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(1) (Michie Supp.
2002). The district court rejected this argument. Finding no
error, we affirm.
This court reviews de novo the district court's legal
conclusions concerning personal jurisdiction. Mylan Labs., Inc. v.
Akzo, N.V., 2 F.3d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1993). When the district court
decides a pretrial dismissal motion concerning personal
jurisdiction without evidentiary hearings, then the plaintiff only
has to prove a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. Id.Further, all reasonable inferences are resolved in favor of the
plaintiff. Id.A two-step analysis is normally used by this court in
determining issues of personal jurisdiction. Ellicott Mach. Corp.,
Inc. v. John Holland Party, Ltd., 995 F.2d 474, 477 (4th Cir.
1993). A court must first determine whether the forum state’s
long-arm statute confers jurisdiction over the non-resident
defendant. Id. Assuming the requirements of the forum state’s
long-arm statute have been satisfied, the court must next determine
- 2 -
whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the non-resident
defendant comports with federal constitutional standards of due
process. Id.Virginia’s Long Arm Statute states that: “A court may
exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or
by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person’s
. . . [t]ransacting any business in this Commonwealth.” Va. Code
Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(1). Upon review, however, we conclude that
this statute does not apply to domestic relations issues such as
child support disputes, which are instead governed by Va. Code Ann.
§§ 8.01-328. 1(A) (8), (9) (Michie Supp. 2002). Accordingly we
affirm the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -