In Re State of Colorado, ex rel. Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General v. JUUL Labs, Inc. Adam Bowen James Monsees Nicholas Pritzker and Riaz Valani , 2022 CO 46 ( 2022 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-05-19">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/928731144" data-vids="928731144" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">2022 CO 46</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party">In Re <span class="ldml-name">State of Colorado</span></span>, ex rel. <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Philip J. Weiser</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Attorney General</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Plaintiff</span></span> </b><b class="ldml-bold"> v. </b><b class="ldml-bold"> <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">JUUL Labs, Inc.</span></span>; <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Adam Bowen</span></span>; <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">James Monsees</span></span>; <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Nicholas Pritzker</span></span>; and <span class="ldml-party"><span class="ldml-name">Riaz Valani</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Defendants</span></span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-cite">Nos. 22SA108</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">22SA111</span></b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-court"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court of Colorado</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">September 26, 2022</b></span></p></div>
<div class="ldml-syllabus"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-content-heading-label="
ADVANCE
SHEET HEADNOTE
" data-id="heading_251" data-value="ADVANCE
SHEET HEADNOTE" data-specifier="" data-format="upper_case_lacks_specifier" id="heading_251"><span data-paragraph-id="251" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="251" data-sentence-id="262" class="ldml-sentence">ADVANCE
SHEET HEADNOTE</span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="286" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="286" data-sentence-id="297" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">this
case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the supreme court</span> reviews <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s
order denying <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Adam Bo</span> wen, <span class="ldml-entity">James Monsees</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Nicholas
Pritzker</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">Riaz Valani</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity">motions to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="286" data-sentence-id="506" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span> are California residents
who served in various capacities as officers or directors of
<span class="ldml-entity">JUUL Labs, Inc.</span>, an e-cigarette manufacturer, or its
predecessor companies.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="682" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="682" data-sentence-id="693" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The
court</span> now concludes that that because <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>
based its determination on allegations directed against JUUL
and the group of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> as a whole, rather than on an
individualized assessment of each <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s actions,
and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> did not allege sufficient facts to
establish either that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> were primary participants in
wrongful conduct that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> purposefully directed at Colorado,
or that the injuries alleged in the amended complaint arose
out of or related to <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' Colorado-directed
activities, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="1" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_1269" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
in finding that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had made a prima facie showing of
personal jurisdiction in this matter.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1370" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1370" data-sentence-id="1381" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The
court</span> thus makes the rule to show cause absolute, and remands
<span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="2" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_1514" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-content-heading-label="
Original Proceedings Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 District Court,
City and County of Denver, Case No. 20CV32283 Honorable J.
Eric Elliff, Judge
" data-id="heading_1514" data-value="Original Proceedings Pursuant to C.A.R. 21 District Court,
City and County of Denver, Case No. 20CV32283 Honorable J.
Eric Elliff, Judge" data-specifier="" data-format="title_case_lacks_specifier" id="heading_1514"><span data-paragraph-id="1514" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1514" data-sentence-id="1527" class="ldml-sentence">Original Proceedings Pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> District Court</span>,
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1527"><span class="ldml-refname">City and County of Denver</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 20CV32283</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Honorable J.
Eric Elliff</span>, Judge</span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="1666" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1666" data-sentence-id="1679" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity">Plaintiff</span>:</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1704" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1704" data-sentence-id="1716" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Philip
J. Weiser</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1752" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1752" data-sentence-id="1764" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Eric
R. Olson</span>, Solicitor General</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1798" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1798" data-sentence-id="1811" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Abigail M. Hinchcliff</span>, First Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1867" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1867" data-sentence-id="1879" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Megan
Paris Rundlet</span>, Senior Assistant Solicitor General</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="1936" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1936" data-sentence-id="1948" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Bianca
E. Miyata</span>, Assistant Solicitor General</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-content-heading-label="
Jeffrey M. Leake, Senior Assistant Attorney General
" data-id="heading_1995" data-value="Jeffrey M. Leake, Senior Assistant Attorney General" data-specifier="" data-format="title_case_lacks_specifier" id="heading_1995"><span data-paragraph-id="1995" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="1995" data-sentence-id="2008" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Jeffrey M. Leake</span>, Senior Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="2060" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2060" data-sentence-id="2072" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Brady
J. Grassmeyer</span>, Assistant <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="1" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_2121" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Adam Bowen</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">James Monsees</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Nicholas
Pritzker</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">Riaz Valani</span>:</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2223" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2223" data-sentence-id="2236" class="ldml-sentence">Stinson LLP</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2248" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2248" data-sentence-id="2260" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Zane
A. Gilmer</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2276" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2276" data-sentence-id="2288" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Perry
L. Glantz</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2305" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2305" data-sentence-id="2318" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Adam Bowen</span>:</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2354" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2354" data-sentence-id="2367" class="ldml-sentence">Boersch & Illovsky LLP</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2390" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2390" data-sentence-id="2402" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Eugene
Illovsky</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Sharon Frase</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2432" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2432" data-sentence-id="2445" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">James Monsees</span>:</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2484" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2484" data-sentence-id="2497" class="ldml-sentence">Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2532" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2532" data-sentence-id="2544" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">James
N. Kramer</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2561" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2561" data-sentence-id="2573" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Lauren
B. Seaton</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2591" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2591" data-sentence-id="2604" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2628" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2628" data-sentence-id="2641" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Nicholas Pritzker</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">Riaz Valani</span>:</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2676" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2676" data-sentence-id="2689" class="ldml-sentence">Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2737" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2737" data-sentence-id="2749" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Mark
C. Hansen</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2765" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2765" data-sentence-id="2778" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Michael J. Guzman</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2796" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2796" data-sentence-id="2808" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">David
L. Schwarz</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2826" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2826" data-sentence-id="2839" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity">Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers
Association</span>:</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2904" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2904" data-sentence-id="2917" class="ldml-sentence">Wahlberg, <span class="ldml-entity">Woodruff, Nimmo & Sloane LLP</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2956" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2956" data-sentence-id="2968" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Megan
K. Matthews</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="2987" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="2987" data-sentence-id="3000" class="ldml-sentence">Balaban Law, LLC</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="3017" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="3017" data-sentence-id="3029" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Olga
Y. Steinreich</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="3049" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="3049" data-sentence-id="3061" class="ldml-sentence">No
appearance on behalf of <span class="ldml-entity">JUUL Labs, Inc.</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="3105" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="3105" data-sentence-id="3116" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">Rule
Made Absolute</b>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="2" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_3136" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">GABRIEL</span> delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span>, in which
CHIEF JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">BOATRIGHT</span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">MÁRQUEZ</span>, JUSTICE
<span class="ldml-entity">HOOD</span>, JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">HART</span>, and JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity">SAMOUR</span> joined</span>.</span> <span class="ldml-nonparticipation"><span data-paragraph-id="3105" data-sentence-id="3309" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE
<span class="ldml-entity">BERKENKOTTER</span></span> did not participate.</span></span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="3" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_3352" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="3352" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4">
<span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (GABRIEL)"><span data-paragraph-id="3352" data-sentence-id="3365" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">GABRIEL</span></span>, JUSTICE</span></span>
</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="3382" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="3382" data-sentence-id="3393" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3393"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span>
In these original proceedings pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span>
review <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s order denying <span class="ldml-entity">Adam Bowen</span>,
<span class="ldml-entity">James Monsees</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Nicholas Pritzker</span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">Riaz Valani</span>'s
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(collectively, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-localname"><span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>'</span>"</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">motions to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3382" data-sentence-id="3647" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span> are
California residents who served in various capacities as
officers or directors of <span class="ldml-entity">JUUL Labs, Inc.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-localname">JUUL</span>"</span>)</span>,
an e-cigarette manufacturer, or its predecessor companies.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="3382" data-sentence-id="3832" class="ldml-sentence">The <span class="ldml-entity">State of Colorado</span>, through <span class="ldml-entity">Attorney General</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Philip J.
Weiser</span>, has filed an amended complaint alleging that
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> in their individual capacities, along with JUUL as
a corporation, violated several provisions of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_3832"><span class="ldml-cite">Colorado
Consumer Protection Act <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"CCPA"</span>)</span></span></a></span> and are subject to
personal jurisdiction in Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3382" data-sentence-id="4156" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span> contend that
<span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s exercise of personal jurisdiction
over them is improper because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> lack the requisite minimum
contacts with Colorado and the exercise of personal
jurisdiction over them is unreasonable in <span class="ldml-entity">the present
circumstances</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="3382" data-sentence-id="4423" class="ldml-sentence">JUUL does not argue that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>
lacks personal jurisdiction over it.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="4505" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="4505" data-sentence-id="4516" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4516"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> issued a rule to show cause and now conclude that because
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> based its determination on allegations
directed against JUUL and the group of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> as a whole,
rather than on an individualized assessment of each
<span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s actions, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> did not allege
sufficient facts to establish either that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> were
primary participants in wrongful conduct that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="4" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_4925" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
purposefully directed at Colorado, or that the injuries
alleged in the amended complaint arose out of or related to
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' Colorado-directed activities, <span class="ldml-entity">the district
court</span> erred in finding that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had made a prima facie
showing of personal jurisdiction in this matter.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="5212" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="5212" data-sentence-id="5223" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5223"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span>
Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> make the rule to show cause absolute and
remand <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.</span>
</p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-value="I.
Facts and Procedural History" data-content-heading-label="
I.
Facts and Procedural History
" data-id="heading_5357" data-types="background" data-confidences="very_high" data-ordinal_start="1" data-specifier="I" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" id="heading_5357" data-ordinal_end="1"><span data-paragraph-id="5357" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="5357" data-sentence-id="5368" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="5357" data-sentence-id="5371" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="5400" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="5400" data-sentence-id="5411" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5411"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span>
Because <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> comes to <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> in the context of a <span class="ldml-entity">motion to
dismiss</span> that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> resolved based on the
allegations of the amended complaint alone, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> take the facts
principally from the amended complaint.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="5634" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="5634" data-sentence-id="5645" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5645"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span>
JUUL produces and markets under the JUUL name an electronic
nicotine delivery system commonly referred to as an
e-cigarette or vaporizer.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5634" data-sentence-id="5789" class="ldml-sentence">The JUUL e-cigarette delivers
nicotine in self-contained pods that are used in conjunction
with a rechargeable handheld device that resembles a USB
flash drive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5634" data-sentence-id="5953" class="ldml-sentence">It appears undisputed that JUUL's
e-cigarettes and pods are available for purchase online and
in retail locations throughout the United States.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="6099" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="6099" data-sentence-id="6110" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6110"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span>
JUUL traces its origins back to <span class="ldml-entity">2007</span>, when Bowen and Monsees
founded <span class="ldml-entity">Ploom, Inc.</span>, a company that developed and sold
pod-based tobacco vaporizers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6099" data-sentence-id="6262" class="ldml-sentence">Bowen served as Ploom's
Chief Technology Officer, and Monsees served as its
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="5" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_6341" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
Chief Executive Officer <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"CEO"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6099" data-sentence-id="6376" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span>, Bowen and
Monsees sold Ploom and started <span class="ldml-entity">Pax Labs, Inc.</span>, where <span class="ldml-entity">they</span>
first launched the JUUL product.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="6488" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="6488" data-sentence-id="6499" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6499"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span>
In October of <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span>, Monsees, who was then Pax's CEO,
stepped down and transferred into the role of Chief Product
Officer.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6488" data-sentence-id="6627" class="ldml-sentence">For the next ten months, three board members,
including Pritzker and Valani, served on an executive
committee that effectively ran the company's operations
until the board named a new CEO.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="6819" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="6819" data-sentence-id="6830" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6830"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span>
Thereafter, in <span class="ldml-entity">2017</span>, JUUL was spun off as a separate company
in order to allow it to focus solely on e-cigarettes.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="6950" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="6950" data-sentence-id="6961" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6961"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span>
JUUL has publicly stated that its mission is to transition
the world's adult smokers away from combustible
cigarettes, to eliminate the use of such cigarettes, and to
combat underage usage of JUUL products.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6950" data-sentence-id="7175" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity">2018</span>, however, 27%
of high school students in Colorado reported that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had
vaped within the last thirty days-a rate almost double that
of the national rate.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6950" data-sentence-id="7341" class="ldml-sentence">And that same year, the commissioner of
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"FDA"</span>)</span>
declared that the United States faced an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"epidemic of
youth-cigarette use."</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="7506" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="7506" data-sentence-id="7517" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7517"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span>
Against this backdrop, in <span class="ldml-entity">July 2020</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> filed a
complaint against JUUL setting forth two theories of
liability.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7506" data-sentence-id="7643" class="ldml-sentence">First, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleged that JUUL had
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"created a public nuisance of youth and adult addiction
that substantially, significantly and unreasonably interferes
with the well-being of the Colorado public and its health,
safety and welfare."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="7506" data-sentence-id="7884" class="ldml-sentence">Second, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> asserted that
JUUL
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="6" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_7924" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
has engaged in numerous deceptive trade practices, each of
which constitutes a violation of <span class="ldml-entity">section</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">6-1-105<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>, C.R.S.</span>
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2022</span>)</span></a></span>, of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7884"><span class="ldml-cite">CCPA</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7506" data-sentence-id="8067" class="ldml-sentence">In particular, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleged, among
other things, that JUUL had <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> knowingly and recklessly
advertised the sale of an addictive nicotine product to
youth; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> failed to disclose that its product contained
nicotine and that nicotine is an addictive chemical; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span>
knowingly, recklessly, and falsely represented the
concentration and quantity of nicotine in JUUL's
e-cigarettes; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span> falsely implied that the primary
ingredients in JUUL's e-cigarettes were approved for
inhalation by the FDA.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="8574" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="8574" data-sentence-id="8585" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8585"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span>
Notably, the bulk of <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s complaint focused on
JUUL's nationwide actions and advertising campaigns,
including, among other allegations, that JUUL posted
misleading information on its website regarding the
ingredients of its products, engaged social media influencers
and celebrities to market its products to underage consumers,
and used a private company masquerading as a non-profit
smoking-cessation organization to generate referrals for JUUL
products.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8574" data-sentence-id="9062" class="ldml-sentence">With regard to Colorado, the complaint alleged
little more than that in <span class="ldml-entity">September 2015</span>, JUUL held over sixty
promotional events at convenience and tobacco store parking
lots in this state.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="9254" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="9254" data-sentence-id="9265" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9265"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span>
JUUL moved to dismiss the complaint in part, arguing that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>
<span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s public nuisance claim failed under Colorado
law and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> certain of <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9265"><span class="ldml-cite">CCPA</span></a></span> claims</span> were
preempted by federal law.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9254" data-sentence-id="9468" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> granted
JUUL's
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="7" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_9505" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss</span> as to the public nuisance claim but denied
the motion to the extent that it was premised on JUUL's
preemption arguments.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="9647" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="9647" data-sentence-id="9658" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9658"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span>
Thereafter, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> amended its complaint to add
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>, in their individual capacities, as <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> in
the suit.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9647" data-sentence-id="9787" class="ldml-sentence">The amended complaint summarizes the relationships
between each individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> and JUUL as follows:</span>
</p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_9894" class="ldml-blockquote">
<span data-sentence-id="9895" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Adam Bowen</span> co-founded the company that became JUUL
with <span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">James Monsees</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">2007</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="9995" class="ldml-sentence">At all relevant times
and up until the present date, Bowen served as the Chief
Technology Officer and as a member of the <span class="ldml-entity">Board of Directors
of JUUL</span> or its predecessors . . . .</span>
</blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10174" class="ldml-blockquote">
<span data-sentence-id="10175" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">James Monsees</span> co-founded the company that became
JUUL with <span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Adam Bowen</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">2007</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="10275" class="ldml-sentence">Monsees served as
Chief Executive Officer of JUUL until <span class="ldml-entity">October 2015</span> when <span class="ldml-entity">he</span>
transferred into the position of Chief Product Officer of
JUUL, until <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> stepped down from that position in
approximately <span class="ldml-entity">March 2020</span>.</span> <span data-sentence-id="10490" class="ldml-sentence">At all relevant times Monsees was a
member of the <span class="ldml-entity">Board of Directors of JUUL</span> or its predecessors,
until <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> stepped down in approximately <span class="ldml-entity">March 2020</span> . . . .</span>
</blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_10648" class="ldml-blockquote">
<span data-sentence-id="10649" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Nicholas Pritzker</span> invested in JUUL's
predecessor as early as <span class="ldml-entity">2007</span>, and has served on the Pax
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(JUUL's predecessor)</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">JUUL Board of Directors</span> since at
least <span class="ldml-entity">June 2014</span> to the present date.</span> <span data-sentence-id="10849" class="ldml-sentence">From at least <span class="ldml-entity">October
2015</span> through <span class="ldml-entity">August 2016</span> Pritzker was on the three-member
<span class="ldml-entity">Executive Committee of the Board of Directors</span> that took
managerial control over the company . . . .</span>
</blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_11032" class="ldml-blockquote">
<span data-sentence-id="11033" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendant</span> <span class="ldml-entity">Riaz Valani</span> has been on the Pax <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(JUUL's
predecessor)</span> or <span class="ldml-entity">JUUL Board of Directors</span> since at least <span class="ldml-entity">May
2011</span> and from at least <span class="ldml-entity">October 2015</span> through <span class="ldml-entity">August 2016</span>,
Valani was on the three-member
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="8" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_11235" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">Executive Committee of the Board of Directors</span> that took
managerial control over the company.</span>
</blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="11330" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="11330" data-sentence-id="11341" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11341"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span>
In addition to adding the above information about each
individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> changed over fifty references
to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"JUUL"</span> in the original complaint to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"JUUL
and the Management <span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span>"</span> in the amended complaint.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="11568" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="11568" data-sentence-id="11579" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11579"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> further added <span class="ldml-entity">a section</span> to the amended complaint
entitled, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Involvement of the Management
<span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span>,"</span> in which <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleges that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"fully participated in JUUL's deceptive trade
practices"</span> and approved JUUL's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"unconscionable
and unfair marketing to youth,"</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"deceptive
messaging about the health, safety and testing of its
product,"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"deceptive cessation and modified
risk marketing."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11568" data-sentence-id="12001" class="ldml-sentence">To support these assertions, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>
included a <span class="ldml-entity">2015</span> email in which JUUL's former Chief
Operating Officer stated, among other things, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Our board
members are more involved than most, and likely crazier than
most, given the depth of experience <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have in this
industry."</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="12279" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="12279" data-sentence-id="12290" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12290"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span>
With regard to <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' personal involvement in
JUUL's marketing, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleges that on <span class="ldml-entity">March 23,
2015</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> attended a board meeting at which <span class="ldml-entity">they</span>
viewed and then discussed examples of JUUL's proposed
initial marketing, including a slide that announced,
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Influencer Marketing has begun."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12279" data-sentence-id="12602" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> further
asserts that in response to materials like these, Pritzker
commented that JUUL's branding <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"feels too
young."</span></span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="9" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_12732" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12732" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="12743" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12743"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span>
Notwithstanding this relative dearth of specific allegations
regarding <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' activities, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> contends that
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> personally promoted JUUL's strategy of
engaging social influencers who were <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"especially
persuasive to a younger audience."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13005" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">the
State</span> asserts that when <em class="ldml-emphasis">Vanity Fair</em> published a
photo of an adult celebrity carrying a JUUL device at an
awards ceremony, Valani asked Bowen how <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> could make the
image <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"go viral"</span> and offered a connection to the
celebrity's publicist.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12732" data-sentence-id="13265" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> further contends that
Pritzker emailed Monsees to request that JUUL send free
products to a member of a popular band, whom JUUL's
Marketing Director described as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"an <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'influencer'</span>
and one of JUUL's greatest <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'champions.'</span>"</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="13499" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="13499" data-sentence-id="13510" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13510"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span>
With regard to JUUL's allegedly deceptive messaging
concerning its products' safety, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> contends that
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> attended a board meeting at which JUUL's Head
of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs made clear that JUUL was
putting off certain toxicology testing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13499" data-sentence-id="13787" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> asserts
that in spite of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' awareness that JUUL had not
fully tested its products for harmful and potentially harmful
constituents, Bowen provided deceptive assurances about
JUUL's safety to a JUUL sales representative who had been
working to allay concerns expressed by Kroger, a national
grocery chain.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13499" data-sentence-id="14117" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> alleges that, in reliance on these
assurances, Kroger sold JUUL products in its Colorado stores
from <span class="ldml-entity">2016</span> until <span class="ldml-entity">2019</span>.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="10" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_14247" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14247" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="14247" data-sentence-id="14258" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14258"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span>
Lastly, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleges that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' communications
showed a focus on <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"debunking studies, and responding to
negative press, rather than engaging in substantive changes
or youth prevention in a timely fashion."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14247" data-sentence-id="14482" class="ldml-sentence">The amended
complaint thus quotes an email from Valani to JUUL's
board and CEO, in which <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> requested weekly progress updates
on, among other things, JUUL's efforts to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[d]</span>ebunk
the studies . . ., ideally in coordination with independent
researchers"</span>; <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span>nnounce that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[JUUL]</span> agree<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[s]</span> that
youth should not use <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[tobacco products]</span>"</span>; and hire a
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"credible head"</span> of youth policy.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14247" data-sentence-id="14865" class="ldml-sentence">The amended
complaint further details how Valani emailed a <em class="ldml-emphasis">New York
Times</em> <span class="ldml-entity">article</span> entitled, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The Formaldehyde in Your
E-Cigs,"</span> to JUUL's CEO and <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>, prompting the
CEO to ask the group about the level of formaldehyde in
JUUL's products.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14247" data-sentence-id="15114" class="ldml-sentence">Monsees responded that the level of
formaldehyde in JUUL's e-cigarettes was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[m]</span>uch
lower in e-cigs in general compared to cigs"</span> and
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[n]</span>early undetectable in JUUL."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14247" data-sentence-id="15283" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> also
alleges that in a letter to the editor published by the
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15283"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Denver Post</em></span></a></span>, JUUL's CEO wrote, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[T]</span>he fact
that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[JUUL]</span> has taken off with youth is as appalling to <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> as
it is to you."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="14247" data-sentence-id="15478" class="ldml-sentence">Commenting on this letter in an internal
email, Valani responded, <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"Thanks.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">Great to see."</span></span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="15569" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="15569" data-sentence-id="15580" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15580"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span>
Notably, none of the foregoing allegations show any direct
connection between <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> and the <span class="ldml-entity">state of Colorado</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15569" data-sentence-id="15702" class="ldml-sentence">Nor
do any of these allegations suggest that any of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
purposefully aimed their activities at Colorado, as
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="11" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_15821" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
opposed to engaging in nationwide marketing activities.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="15569" data-sentence-id="15879" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, despite the fact that the amended complaint is 141
pages long, its only allegations specifically concerning
Colorado <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., allegations beyond those related to
nationwide advertising)</span> were that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> JUUL held sampling
events and sold JUUL products in Colorado stores <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(none of the
Management <span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span> were alleged to have attended any of
these sampling events, which were part of a broader campaign
and not unique to Colorado)</span>; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"youthful images"</span>
from JUUL's board-approved marketing plan were shown in
marketing displays in Colorado convenience stores, and brand
ambassadors who attended the sampling events were instructed
to direct consumers to JUUL's website if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had any
health- or safety-related questions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(these, too, were not
unique to Colorado)</span>; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> JUUL's CEO <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(not any of
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>)</span> authored a letter to the editor that was
published in the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15879"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-refname">Denver</span> <span class="ldml-cite">Post</span></em></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="16777" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="16777" data-sentence-id="16788" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16788"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span>
In response to <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s new allegations, Bowen and
Monsees <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(separately)</span> and Pritzker and Valani <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(together)</span> filed
<span class="ldml-entity">motions to dismiss the amended complaint</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16777" data-sentence-id="16953" class="ldml-sentence">All <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>, who
as noted above are California residents, asserted that <span class="ldml-entity">the
district court</span> did not have personal jurisdiction over them.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="16777" data-sentence-id="17095" class="ldml-sentence">To support this assertion, each <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> contended that <span class="ldml-entity">the
State</span> failed to plead facts sufficient to make a prima facie
showing that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> had established <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"minimum
contacts"</span> with Colorado, as required under
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885651765" data-vids="885651765" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17095"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">International Shoe Co. v. Washington</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">326 U.S. 310,
316</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1945</span>)</span></a></span>, and <span class="ldml-entity">its progeny</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16777" data-sentence-id="17395" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="12" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_17420" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
argued that under <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17395"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Calder v. Jones</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">465 U.S. 783,
789-90</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17395" data-refglobal="case:romevreyes,2017coa84"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Rome v. Reyes</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2017 COA 84</span></a></span></span>,
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17395"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 32</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895736934" data-vids="895736934" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17395"><span class="ldml-cite">401 P.3d 75, 83</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> may exercise personal
jurisdiction over the directors of a corporation only when
those directors were <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"primary participants"</span> in the
alleged corporate wrongdoing and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"expressly aimed"</span>
their activities at the forum state.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16777" data-sentence-id="17775" class="ldml-sentence">Here, however,
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> contended that the amended complaint did not
allege that any of them was a primary participant in any acts
directed at Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16777" data-sentence-id="17933" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> asserted that
the amended complaint did not allege that any of them spoke
directly with any Colorado residents, signed agreements for
work to be performed in Colorado, or otherwise personally
participated in any Colorado-based projects or transactions.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="16777" data-sentence-id="18215" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span> thus argued that the amended complaint did not
show that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had expressly aimed any activity at Colorado.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="16777" data-sentence-id="18335" class="ldml-sentence">To the contrary, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> said that, at best, the amended
complaint described <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"undirected, national conduct,"</span>
which was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction
over them.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="18513" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="18513" data-sentence-id="18524" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18524"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span>
Pritzker and Valani further took issue with <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s
referring to them as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Management Directors,"</span>
arguing that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had never held management positions at
JUUL.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18513" data-sentence-id="18696" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, throughout their briefing, Pritzker and
Valani referred to themselves as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Non-Management
Directors"</span> and asserted that the allegations in the
amended complaint were impermissibly <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"conclusory and
group-pled."</span></span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="13" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_18920" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18920" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="18920" data-sentence-id="18931" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18931"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span>
Finally, all <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> contended that even if <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>
could somehow show that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had minimum contacts with
Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>'s exercise of personal jurisdiction
over them as California residents would be unreasonable and
thus unconstitutional in <span class="ldml-entity">the present circumstances</span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="19220" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="19220" data-sentence-id="19231" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19231"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24</span></a></span>
Without holding an evidentiary hearing, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>
issued an order denying <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' <span class="ldml-entity">motions to dismiss</span>.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="19220" data-sentence-id="19352" class="ldml-sentence">In this order, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> acknowledged that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<em class="ldml-emphasis">in its
145</em> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[sic]</span> <em class="ldml-emphasis">pages, nowhere does the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[amended
complaint]</span> attempt to describe the individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>'
connections to Colorado</em>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19220" data-sentence-id="19533" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Emphasis added</span>.)</span></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="19220" data-sentence-id="19551" class="ldml-sentence">Nevertheless, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> reasoned that although the amended
complaint <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is short on specifics regarding the action of
any one of the individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>, it is quite specific
regarding the actions of the group of them."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19220" data-sentence-id="19774" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span>
thus rejected <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' arguments that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had
failed to make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction, explaining, <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The individuals are alleged
to have conceived, sanctioned, or approved <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[JUUL's]</span>
course of conduct in the commission of the alleged actions.</span>
<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">As such, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are potentially liable as individuals.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">And
having potentially committed torts in Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are
subject to <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span>'s long arm <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span>."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19220" data-sentence-id="20218" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">Citation
omitted</span>.)</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="19220" data-sentence-id="20239" class="ldml-sentence">For the same reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> rejected
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' arguments that it would be unreasonable to
subject them to personal jurisdiction in Colorado.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="14" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_20388" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20388" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="20388" data-sentence-id="20399" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20399"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span>
Bowen and Monsees <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(separately)</span> and Pritzker and Valani
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(together)</span> then moved to certify an interlocutory appeal to
<span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 4.2</span></a></span>, but <span class="ldml-entity">the district
court</span> denied those motions.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="20612" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="20612" data-sentence-id="20623" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20623"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span>
Thereafter, Bowen and Monsees <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(this time together)</span> and
Pritzker and Valani <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(again together)</span> filed <span class="ldml-entity">petitions under
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> seeking immediate relief from <span class="ldml-entity">the district
court</span>'s order</span> denying their <span class="ldml-entity">motions to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20612" data-sentence-id="20881" class="ldml-sentence">In these petitions, <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
argued that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> had erred in concluding that
it could properly assert personal jurisdiction over them
because <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had failed to allege that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
were primary participants in any wrongdoing expressly aimed
at Colorado, <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> lacked minimum contacts with
Colorado, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> the exercise of jurisdiction over them
would therefore be unreasonable.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20612" data-sentence-id="21302" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> issued rules to show
cause in each case.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20612" data-sentence-id="21347" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> raise substantively
overlapping issues and arguments, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> now resolve the two
<span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> together.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-value="II.
Analysis" data-content-heading-label="
II.
Analysis
" data-id="heading_21461" data-types="analysis" data-confidences="very_high" data-ordinal_start="2" data-specifier="II" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" id="heading_21461" data-ordinal_end="2"><span data-paragraph-id="21461" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="21461" data-sentence-id="21472" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="21461" data-sentence-id="21476" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="21485" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="21485" data-sentence-id="21496" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21496"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by discussing our jurisdiction to hear this matter
pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21485" data-sentence-id="21584" class="ldml-sentence">Next, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> lay out the pertinent
principles of law, including the procedure for addressing
<span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span> motions</span>, the applicable standard of review,
and controlling precedent regarding personal jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21485" data-sentence-id="21797" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span>
then apply these principles to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span></span> and
conclude that the allegations in the
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="15" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_21896" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
amended complaint are insufficient to establish a prima facie
showing of personal jurisdiction over the individual
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="21485" data-sentence-id="22032" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not consider whether
<span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s exercise of jurisdiction over
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> would be unreasonable.</span>
</p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="1" data-content-heading-label="
A.
Original Jurisdiction
" data-id="heading_22161" data-parsed="true" data-value="A.
Original Jurisdiction" data-specifier="A" data-format="upper_case_letters" id="heading_22161" data-ordinal_end="1"><span data-paragraph-id="22161" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="22161" data-sentence-id="22172" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="22161" data-sentence-id="22175" class="ldml-sentence">Original Jurisdiction</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="22197" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="22197" data-sentence-id="22208" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22208"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span>
Whether to exercise original jurisdiction under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> is
a matter within our sole discretion.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22197" data-sentence-id="22312" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22208" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovtafoyacaseno18sa224434p3d1193february19,2019"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">People v.
Tafoya</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2019 CO 13</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22208"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovtafoyacaseno18sa224434p3d1193february19,2019"><span class="ldml-cite">434 P.3d 1193, 1195</span></a></span>.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="22197" data-sentence-id="22370" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"An original proceeding under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> is an
extraordinary remedy that is limited both in its purpose and
availability."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22197" data-sentence-id="22494" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22370" data-refglobal="case:inrethepeopleofthestateofcoloradovtafoyacaseno18sa224434p3d1193february19,2019"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22197" data-sentence-id="22498" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> generally choose to
exercise our discretion under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> in <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> that
raise issues of first impression and that are of significant
public importance."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22197" data-sentence-id="22660" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22498" data-refglobal="case:inresmithvmichaeldjeppsen,defendantandstatefarmmutualautomobileinsuranceno11sa51277p3d224,2012co32april30,2012"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Smith v. Jeppsen</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2012 CO
32</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22498"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 6</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:inresmithvmichaeldjeppsen,defendantandstatefarmmutualautomobileinsuranceno11sa51277p3d224,2012co32april30,2012"><span class="ldml-cite">277 P.3d 224, 226</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="22197" data-sentence-id="22715" class="ldml-sentence">Further, as pertinent here,
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> often elect to hear challenges to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'the exercise
of personal jurisdiction by <span class="ldml-entity">district courts</span> over out-of-state
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>'</span> because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'raise<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[ ]</span> the question
whether it is unfair to force such <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> to defend here at
all.'</span>"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="22197" data-sentence-id="22978" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889038563" data-vids="889038563" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22715"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Magill v. Ford Motor Co.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2016 CO
57</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_22715"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 9</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889038563" data-vids="889038563" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">379 P.3d 1033, 1036</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">alteration in original</span>)</span>
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893945333" data-vids="893945333" class="ldml-reference"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-refname">Keefe v. Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum,
P.C.</span>,</em> <span class="ldml-cite">40 P.3d 1267, 1270</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="23155" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="23155" data-sentence-id="23166" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_23166"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span>
For three principal reasons <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> deem it appropriate to
exercise our discretion under <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span> to hear this matter.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="23155" data-sentence-id="23287" class="ldml-sentence">First, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not yet opined on the degree of participation
corporate directors must have in a corporation's alleged
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="16" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_23408" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
wrongdoing to subject those directors in their individual
capacities to personal jurisdiction in Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23155" data-sentence-id="23518" class="ldml-sentence">Second, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">we</span>
view</span> this issue as one of significant public importance
because it not only concerns the rights of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> in
<span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> but also affects whether non-resident directors of
any entity may be haled into <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> in Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="23155" data-sentence-id="23756" class="ldml-sentence">And third,
were <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> to decline to hear this matter pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.A.R. 21</span></a></span>,
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> would be forced to litigate their case in Colorado
and would be able to seek relief only after <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have
shouldered the very burden that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> now challenge as
improper.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-parsed="true" data-value="B.
C.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) Motions and Standard of Review" data-content-heading-label="
B.
C.R.C.P. 12(b)(2) Motions and Standard of Review
" data-id="heading_24014" data-types="standardofreview" data-confidences="medium" data-ordinal_start="2" data-specifier="B" data-format="upper_case_letters" id="heading_24014" data-ordinal_end="2"><span data-paragraph-id="24014" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="24014" data-sentence-id="24025" class="ldml-sentence"><b class="ldml-bold">B.
<span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span> Motions</span> and Standard of Review</b></span>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="24078" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="24078" data-sentence-id="24089" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24089"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span>
Courts</span> have the discretion to address <span class="ldml-entity">pre-trial motions</span> filed
pursuant to <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span> either by considering only the
documentary evidence in <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> or by holding a hearing.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="24078" data-sentence-id="24277" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24089"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Archangel Diamond Corp. v. Lukoil</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">123 P.3d 1187,
1192</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2005</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24078" data-sentence-id="24347" class="ldml-sentence">The documentary evidence consists of the
allegations made in the complaint and any affidavits and
other evidence submitted by <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24078" data-sentence-id="24488" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24347"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24078" data-sentence-id="24492" class="ldml-sentence">When,
as here, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> addresses <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span> motion</span>
based on the documentary evidence alone, <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> must
accept as true allegations in the complaint that are not
contradicted by <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span>' competent evidence and
must resolve any conflicting facts in <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>'s
favor.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="24078" data-sentence-id="24801" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24492"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="24805" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="24805" data-sentence-id="24816" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24816"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span>
Further, when <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> chooses to decide <span class="ldml-entity">a <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">C.R.C.P. 12<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(b)</span><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span></span></a></span>
motion</span> based solely on the documentary evidence, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the
<span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span> need only demonstrate a prima
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="17" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_24979" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
facie showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat the
motion."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24805" data-sentence-id="25044" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_24816"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24805" data-sentence-id="25048" class="ldml-sentence">This burden is not high-a prima
facie showing exists <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"when <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> raises a
reasonable inference that <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> has jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the
defendant</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="24805" data-sentence-id="25207" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25048" data-refglobal="case:romevreyes,2017coa84"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Rome</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25048"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 10</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895736934" data-vids="895736934" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">401 P.3d at 79-80</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span>
<em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_25276"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Archangel</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">123 P.3d at 1192</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">describing as
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"light"</span> the burden of making a prima facie
showing</span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="25345" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="25345" data-sentence-id="25356" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25356"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span>
Whether <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> has made a prima facie showing of
personal jurisdiction is a question of law that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review de
novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25345" data-sentence-id="25484" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889038563" data-vids="889038563" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25356"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Magill</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25356"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 11</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889038563" data-vids="889038563" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">379 P.3d at 1036</span></a></span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="3" data-content-heading-label="
C.
Personal Jurisdiction
" data-id="heading_25516" data-parsed="true" data-value="C.
Personal Jurisdiction" data-specifier="C" data-format="upper_case_letters" id="heading_25516" data-ordinal_end="3"><span data-paragraph-id="25516" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="25516" data-sentence-id="25527" class="ldml-sentence">C.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="25516" data-sentence-id="25530" class="ldml-sentence">Personal Jurisdiction</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="25552" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="25552" data-sentence-id="25563" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25563"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"For a <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado court</span> to exercise jurisdiction over a
non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> must comply with
Colorado's long-arm <span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> and constitutional due
process."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="25552" data-sentence-id="25736" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25563" data-refglobal="case:aligncorpltdvboustred,2017co103"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Align Corp. v. Boustred</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2017 CO 103</span></a></span>,
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25563"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 9</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889059556" data-vids="889059556" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">421 P.3d 163, 167</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="25552" data-sentence-id="25799" class="ldml-sentence">Because Colorado's long-arm
<span class="ldml-entity">statute</span> confers on <span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the maximum jurisdiction
permitted by the due process clauses of the United States and
Colorado constitutions,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span>'s ability to
establish jurisdiction over a non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>
necessarily depends on whether a <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado court</span>'s
exercise of that jurisdiction comports with due process.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="25552" data-sentence-id="26157" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889059556" data-vids="889059556" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25799"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_25799"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Archangel</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">123 P.3d at 1193</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="26200" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="26200" data-sentence-id="26211" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26211"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span>
In determining whether <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> may exercise personal
jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> in a multi-<span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> case,
<span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> must consider each <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> individually.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="26200" data-sentence-id="26381" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, in
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891803793" data-vids="891803793" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26381"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Rush v. Savchuk</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">444 U.S. 320, 331-32</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1980</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the
Supreme Court</span> concluded that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"considering the
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">'defending <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>'</span> together and
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="18" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_26524" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
aggregating their forum contacts in determining whether <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the
<span class="ldml-entity">district court</span>]</span> had jurisdiction . . . is plainly
unconstitutional."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="26200" data-sentence-id="26658" class="ldml-sentence">Likewise, in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26658"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Calder</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">465
U.S. at 790</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span> opined that employees' contacts
with the forum state <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"are not to be judged according to
their employer's activities there,"</span> but rather
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[e]</span>ach <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s contacts with the forum State
must be assessed individually."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="26200" data-sentence-id="26928" class="ldml-sentence">And in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895287174" data-vids="895287174" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26928"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Burger King
Corp. v. Rudzewicz</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">471 U.S. 462, 475</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1985</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span>
emphasized that personal jurisdiction is proper only when
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"actions by <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> <em class="ldml-emphasis">himself</em> . . . create
a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'substantial connection'</span> with the forum
State."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="26200" data-sentence-id="27163" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-cert">Quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888956375" data-vids="888956375" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_26928"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">McGee v. Int'l Life Ins.
Co.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">355 U.S. 220, 223</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1957</span>)</span></a></span></span>.)</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="27230" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="27230" data-sentence-id="27241" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27241"><span class="ldml-cite">¶35</span></a></span>
In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885651765" data-vids="885651765" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27241"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">International Shoe</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">326 U.S. at 316</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme
Court</span> concluded that a state may exercise personal
jurisdiction over a non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> only when that
<span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> has <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"certain minimum contacts with <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the forum
state]</span> such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">'traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.'</span>"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27230" data-sentence-id="27591" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-cert">Quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895364924" data-vids="895364924" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27241"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Milliken v. Meyer</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">311
U.S. 457, 463</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1940</span>)</span></a></span></span>.)</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27230" data-sentence-id="27647" class="ldml-sentence">In assessing whether <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> has
minimum contacts with the forum state, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> properly
focuses on <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'the relationship among <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>, the
forum, and the litigation.'</span>"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27230" data-sentence-id="27827" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27647"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Calder</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">465
U.S. at 788</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/885029086" data-vids="885029086" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27647"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Shaffer v. Heitner</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">433 U.S.
186, 204</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1977</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="27230" data-sentence-id="27909" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[f]</span>or a State to exercise
jurisdiction consistent with due process, <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s
suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection
with the forum State."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="27230" data-sentence-id="28084" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893972090" data-vids="893972090" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_27909"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Walden v. Fiore</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">571
U.S. 277, 284</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2014</span>)</span></a></span>.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="19" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_28128" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="28128" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="28128" data-sentence-id="28139" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28139"><span class="ldml-cite">¶36</span></a></span>
This relationship-based approach to questions of personal
jurisdiction has given rise to two distinct categories of
jurisdiction, namely, general jurisdiction and specific
jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28128" data-sentence-id="28333" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889038563" data-vids="889038563" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28139"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Magill</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28139"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889038563" data-vids="889038563" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">379 P.3d at 1037</span></a></span>.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="28128" data-sentence-id="28365" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> does not allege that general jurisdiction
exists with respect to the directors at issue.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28128" data-sentence-id="28471" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly,
<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn to the applicable law governing the exercise of
specific jurisdiction.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="28565" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="28565" data-sentence-id="28576" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28576"><span class="ldml-cite">¶37</span></a></span>
For purposes of specific jurisdiction, <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span> has
instructed that to meet the minimum contacts standard, a
non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> must have <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"purposefully
directed"</span> its activities at residents of the forum state
and <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>'s injuries must <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"arise out of or
relate to"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>'s forum-related activities.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="28565" data-sentence-id="28912" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895287174" data-vids="895287174" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_28942,sentence_28576"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Burger King</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">471 U.S. at 472</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">first quoting
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893594962" data-vids="893594962" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28576"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Keeton v. Hustler Mag., Inc.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">465 U.S. 770, 774</span>
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> and then quoting <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888030999" data-vids="888030999" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28576"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Helicopteros Nacionales de
Colombia, S.A. v. Hall</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">466 U.S. 408, 414</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1984</span>)</span></a></span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span>
<em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">accord</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_28576"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Eighteen Seventy, LP v. Jayson</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">32 F.4th 956,
966</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2022</span>)</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28565" data-sentence-id="29185" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Courts</span> have applied a variety of tests
to determine whether <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s actions satisfy the
above-referenced <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"purposeful direction"</span> standard.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="28565" data-sentence-id="29331" class="ldml-sentence">For example, in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888288950" data-vids="888288950" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29331"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Continental
Motors, Inc.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">877 F.3d 895, 905</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2017</span>)</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the
court</span> discussed the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"continuing relationships,"</span>
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"market exploitation,"</span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"harmful
effects"</span> frameworks for determining whether a
non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s activities satisfy the
purposeful
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="20" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_29639" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
direction requirement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="28565" data-sentence-id="29664" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> argues that
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' actions reflect <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"purposeful
direction"</span> under both the effects and market
exploitation tests.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="29800" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="29800" data-sentence-id="29811" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29811"><span class="ldml-cite">¶38</span></a></span>
The effects test derives from <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span>'s opinion
in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29811"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Calder</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">465 U.S. at 785-90</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29800" data-sentence-id="29906" class="ldml-sentence">There, a celebrity
who resided in California brought a libel suit in a
<span class="ldml-entity">California court</span> against the president of the <em class="ldml-emphasis">National
Enquirer</em> and a reporter who worked for that publication,
both of whom resided in Florida.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29800" data-sentence-id="30126" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_29906"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at 785-86</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29800" data-sentence-id="30141" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The
Court</span> ultimately concluded that jurisdiction in California
was proper because <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> were <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"primary
participants"</span> in wrongful conduct that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span>
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"expressly aimed"</span> at California.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="29800" data-sentence-id="30328" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30141"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at
789-90</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="30344" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="30344" data-sentence-id="30355" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30355"><span class="ldml-cite">¶39</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> subsequently employed a <em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30355"><span class="ldml-refname">Calder</span></a></span>-</em>derived <span class="ldml-entity">analysis
in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30355"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Archangel</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">123 P.3d at 1199-1200</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30344" data-sentence-id="30448" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically,
<span class="ldml-entity">we</span> applied the articulation of the effects test that the
Tenth Circuit had adopted in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894979853" data-vids="894979853" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30448"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Far West Capital, Inc. v.
Towne</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">46 F.3d 1071, 1079</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1995</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30344" data-sentence-id="30621" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span>
</em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30448"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Archangel</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">123 P.3d at 1199-1200</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30344" data-sentence-id="30659" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/894979853" data-vids="894979853" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30659"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Far West
Capital</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">46 F.3d at 1079</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> required <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a
particularized inquiry as to the extent to which <span class="ldml-entity">the
defendant</span> has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of
the forum's laws."</span></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="30856" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="30856" data-sentence-id="30867" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30867"><span class="ldml-cite">¶40</span></a></span>
In the time since <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> decided <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30867"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Archangel</em></span></a></span>, the Tenth
Circuit has further distilled the effects test into three
elements: <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> an intentional action; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> expressly
aimed at the forum state; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> . . . knowledge that the
brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state."</span></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="30856" data-sentence-id="31150" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30867"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Eighteen Seventy</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">32 F.4th at 967</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span>
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890820544" data-vids="890820544" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_30867"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Dental Dynamics, LLC v. Jolly Dental Grp., LLC</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">946
F.3d 1223, 1231</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30856" data-sentence-id="31281" class="ldml-sentence">Under
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="21" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_31289" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
this version of the test, <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> asserting jurisdiction
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(here, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>)</span> must establish each of the three elements
to demonstrate purposeful direction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="30856" data-sentence-id="31449" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31281"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="30856" data-sentence-id="31453" class="ldml-sentence">Because <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span>
the Tenth Circuit's recitation of the effects test in
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31453"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Eighteen Seventy</em></span></a></span> is consistent with our
understanding of <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31453"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Calder</em></span></a></span> and general due process
requirements and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> all of <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> appear to
rely on this version of the test, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> likewise will apply this
version of the effects test to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="31787" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="31798" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31798"><span class="ldml-cite">¶41</span></a></span>
The market exploitation test, in turn, derives from <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the
Supreme Court</span>'s decision in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893594962" data-vids="893594962" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31798"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Keeton</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">465 U.S. at
774, 781</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="31919" class="ldml-sentence">There, <span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme Court</span> concluded that a
non-resident publisher's <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"regular monthly sales of
thousands of magazines"</span> in New Hampshire satisfied the
purposeful direction requirement of the minimum contacts
analysis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="32138" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893594962" data-vids="893594962" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_31919"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at 774</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="32150" class="ldml-sentence">In so concluding, <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span>
explained that when <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"has continuously and
deliberately exploited the New Hampshire market, it must
reasonably anticipate being haled into <span class="ldml-entity">court</span> there in a libel
action based on the contents of its magazine."</span></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="32402" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893594962" data-vids="893594962" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32150"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at 781</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="32414" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, under the market
exploitation test, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> purposefully directs
activities into the forum State if it continuously and
deliberately exploits the forum State's market."</span></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="32604" class="ldml-sentence"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892994293" data-vids="892994293" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32414"><span class="ldml-refname">XMission</span></a></span>, </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892994293" data-vids="892994293" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">L.C</em>. <em class="ldml-emphasis">v. Fluent LLC</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">955 F.3d 833,
849</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">10th Cir.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="32671" class="ldml-sentence">Factors suggesting purposeful direction
based on forum state market exploitation include <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"high
sales volume and large customer base and revenues"</span> and
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"extensive nationwide advertising or ads targeting the
forum state."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="31787" data-sentence-id="32894" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888288950" data-vids="888288950" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32671"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Old Republic</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">877 F.3d at 915</span></a></span>.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="22" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_32925" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="32925" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="32925" data-sentence-id="32936" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_32936"><span class="ldml-cite">¶42</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">The parties</span> here dispute whether the market exploitation
framework is available to <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> as a means of
demonstrating that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(as opposed to JUUL)</span> satisfy
the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"purposeful direction"</span> component of the minimum
contacts analysis.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32925" data-sentence-id="33181" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> contends that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"if an
individual is directly involved in unlawful acts that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span>
knows will reach the forum state through his company's
continuous and deliberate exploitation of the forum market,
<span class="ldml-entity">he</span> can expect to answer for his acts in the forum
state."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="32925" data-sentence-id="33447" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Defendants</span>, in contrast, argue that the market
exploitation test does not apply to individual corporate
directors but rather to the corporate entity, which is the
true market participant.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="32925" data-sentence-id="33638" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree with <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="33664" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="33664" data-sentence-id="33675" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33675"><span class="ldml-cite">¶43</span></a></span>
In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888288950" data-vids="888288950" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33675"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Old Republic</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">877 F.3d at 907 n.14</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>
observed, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888783866" data-vids="888783866" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33675"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Calder</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span> could not rely
on the market exploitation basis for personal jurisdiction
because, unlike in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893594962" data-vids="893594962" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_33675"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Keeton</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span> sued the
reporter and the editor who worked on the allegedly
defamatory <span class="ldml-entity">article</span> rather than their corporate
employer."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="33664" data-sentence-id="34001" class="ldml-sentence">Such a ruling suggests that the market
exploitation test does not apply to corporate employees but
only to the corporate entity itself.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33664" data-sentence-id="34139" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> does
not cite, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not found, a published decision in
which <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> subjected a corporate director, rather than the
corporation itself, to jurisdiction under the market
exploitation framework.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33664" data-sentence-id="34362" class="ldml-sentence">And this is unsurprising.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="33664" data-sentence-id="34388" class="ldml-sentence">Although
<span class="ldml-entity">courts</span> can readily attribute factors such as sales volume, a
customer base, and revenues to corporate entities, these
factors are not readily attributable to individual directors.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="23" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_34580" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="34580" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="34580" data-sentence-id="34591" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34591"><span class="ldml-cite">¶44</span></a></span>
Even were <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> to conclude that the market exploitation test
could theoretically apply to directors in their individual
capacities, however, at no point does <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> allege that
any of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> here had the continuous contacts with
Colorado necessary to succeed under that framework.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34580" data-sentence-id="34886" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span>
</em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892994293" data-vids="892994293" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_34591"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">XMission</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">955 F.3d at 849</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="34580" data-sentence-id="34917" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> will apply
the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"effects test"</span> rather than the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"market
exploitation test"</span> to determine whether <span class="ldml-entity">Colorado courts</span>
may exercise personal jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> here.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="35103" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="35103" data-sentence-id="35114" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35114"><span class="ldml-cite">¶45</span></a></span>
Finally, if <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> determines that a non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>
has the requisite minimum contacts with the forum state, then
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"these contacts may be considered in light of other
factors to determine whether the assertion of personal
jurisdiction would comport with <span class="ldml-quotation quote">'fair play and
substantial justice.'</span>"</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="35103" data-sentence-id="35424" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35114" data-refglobal="case:aligncorpltdvboustred,2017co103"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Align</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35114"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 13</span></a></span></span>,
<span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889059556" data-vids="889059556" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">421 P.3d at 168</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893945333" data-vids="893945333" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Keefe</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">40 P.3d at 1271</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35103" data-sentence-id="35488" class="ldml-sentence">In
making this determination, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> may consider <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the burden
on <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span>, the forum state's interest in resolving
the controversy, and <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>'s interest in
attaining effective and convenient relief."</span></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="35103" data-sentence-id="35701" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/895073948" data-vids="895073948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35488"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Archangel</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">123 P.3d at 1195</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="35730" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="35730" data-sentence-id="35741" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35741"><span class="ldml-cite">¶46</span></a></span>
Having thus set forth the applicable law, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> now turn to the
specific issues presented in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span>
</p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="4" data-content-heading-label="
D.
Application
" data-id="heading_35848" data-parsed="true" data-value="D.
Application" data-specifier="D" data-format="upper_case_letters" id="heading_35848" data-ordinal_end="4"><span data-paragraph-id="35848" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="35848" data-sentence-id="35859" class="ldml-sentence">D.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="35848" data-sentence-id="35862" class="ldml-sentence">Application</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="35874" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="35874" data-sentence-id="35885" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35885"><span class="ldml-cite">¶47</span></a></span>
As noted above, to establish personal jurisdiction under the
effects test, <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> asserting jurisdiction must show
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> an intentional action; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> expressly
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="24" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_36054" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
aimed at the forum state; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> . . . knowledge that the
brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum state."</span></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="35874" data-sentence-id="36171" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35885"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Eighteen Seventy</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">32 F.4th at 967</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span>
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/890820544" data-vids="890820544" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_35885"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Dental Dynamics</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">946 F.3d at 1231</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="35874" data-sentence-id="36250" class="ldml-sentence">For several
reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> has not carried this
burden here.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="36334" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="36334" data-sentence-id="36345" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36345"><span class="ldml-cite">¶48</span></a></span>
First, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> seeks to establish personal jurisdiction by
aggregating forum contacts.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36334" data-sentence-id="36440" class="ldml-sentence">This, however, is directly
contrary to <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">Supreme Court</span> precedent</span> forbidding precisely this
type of pleading to establish personal jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36334" data-sentence-id="36584" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span>
</em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/891803793" data-vids="891803793" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36440"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Rush</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">444 U.S. at 331-32</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="36334" data-sentence-id="36614" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>
essentially conceded that it was relying on such aggregated
contacts.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="36713" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="36713" data-sentence-id="36724" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_36724"><span class="ldml-cite">¶49</span></a></span>
Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> framed the issue before it
as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"whether <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[JUUL's]</span> actions, as alleged, are
sufficient to assert long arm jurisdiction over the
individual <span class="ldml-entity">movants</span>, all of whom are or were officers and/or
directors of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[JUUL]</span> during the relevant time."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="36713" data-sentence-id="36998" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span>
then reviewed the allegations in the amended complaint and
noted, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"While the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[amended complaint]</span> is short on
specifics regarding the action of any one of the individual
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>, it is quite specific regarding the actions of the
group of them."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="36713" data-sentence-id="37260" class="ldml-sentence">After considering allegations related to
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"group action,"</span> citing to <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893729149" data-vids="893729149" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37260"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Hoang v. Arbess</em></span>,
<span class="ldml-cite">80 P.3d 863</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2003</span>)</span></a></span>, and observing that
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"separating out the individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>"</span> may not
be <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"practical or possible for pleading purposes,"</span>
<span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> concluded that the alleged <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"group action"</span>
conferred personal jurisdiction over each individual
<span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="25" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_37616" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="37616" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="37616" data-sentence-id="37627" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37627"><span class="ldml-cite">¶50</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893729149" data-vids="893729149" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_37627"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Hoang</em></span></a></span>, however, does not support <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the district
court</span>'s conclusion</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="37616" data-sentence-id="37698" class="ldml-sentence">There, a division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of
appeals</span> explained:</span>
</p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_37752" class="ldml-blockquote">
<span data-sentence-id="37753" class="ldml-sentence">While an officer of a corporation cannot be held personally
liable for a corporation's tort <em class="ldml-emphasis">solely by reason of
his or her official capacity</em>, an officer may be held
personally liable for his or her individual acts of
negligence even though committed on behalf of the
corporation, which is also held liable.</span>
</blockquote><p data-paragraph-id="38065" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="38065" data-sentence-id="38066" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893729149" data-vids="893729149" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at 867</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-referencenote">emphasis added</span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="38095" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="38095" data-sentence-id="38106" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38106"><span class="ldml-cite">¶51</span></a></span>
As an initial matter, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> note that the division in
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893729149" data-vids="893729149" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38106"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Hoang</em></span></a></span> was addressing whether a corporate
officer's actions subjected him to liability, not
personal jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38095" data-sentence-id="38279" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893729149" data-vids="893729149" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38106"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at 866</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38095" data-sentence-id="38291" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district
court</span> then appears to have done the same, apparently
conflating the issues of director liability and personal
jurisdiction over a director.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38095" data-sentence-id="38447" class="ldml-sentence">Regardless, <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>
appears to have engaged in the very reasoning that
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893729149" data-vids="893729149" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38447"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Hoang</em></span></a></span> prohibits, namely, subjecting <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> to
liability for JUUL's alleged torts based solely on
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' official capacities.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="38095" data-sentence-id="38667" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>
explained that as <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"founders, board members, and/or
<span class="ldml-entity">Executive Committee</span> members who essentially directed <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[JUUL]</span>
activities,"</span> each individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span> was
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"potentially liable"</span> for JUUL's course of
conduct<b class="ldml-bold">.</b></span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="38893" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="38893" data-sentence-id="38904" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_38904"><span class="ldml-cite">¶52</span></a></span>
For the same reason, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are unpersuaded by <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s
reliance on an email in which JUUL's former Chief
Operating Officer claimed that, collectively, JUUL's
board members were <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"more involved than most, and likely
crazier than most."</span></span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="26" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_39147" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="38893" data-sentence-id="39148" class="ldml-sentence">This comment discloses nothing about any individual's
conduct or how any such conduct was directed toward Colorado.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="39265" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="39265" data-sentence-id="39276" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39276"><span class="ldml-cite">¶53</span></a></span>
And <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not persuaded by <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span>'s
assertion that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"separating out the individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[may]</span> not <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[be]</span> practical or possible for pleading
purposes."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39265" data-sentence-id="39450" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The district court</span> offers no explanation as
to why this is so, particularly given that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> appears
to have received discovery in its case against JUUL before it
filed its amended complaint.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39265" data-sentence-id="39649" class="ldml-sentence">Regardless, due process does not
permit <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to curtail <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span>'s constitutional
protections simply because compliance with settled principles
of law may be difficult.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="39822" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="39833" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39833"><span class="ldml-cite">¶54</span></a></span>
Second, at least as to Pritzker and Valani, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> does
not allege the requisite intentional action to satisfy the
first prong of the effects test.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="39991" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_39833"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Eighteen
Seventy</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">32 F.4th at 967</span></a></span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="40031" class="ldml-sentence">The effects test applies only
to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s suit-related conduct."</span></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="40105" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893972090" data-vids="893972090" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_40031"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Walden</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">571 U.S. at 284</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="40130" class="ldml-sentence">Here, many of <span class="ldml-entity">the
State</span>'s allegations against Pritzker and Valani,
including its contentions that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had viewed presentations
announcing that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Influencer Marketing has begun"</span>
and describing JUUL's toxicology testing, do not describe
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"conduct"</span> at all, much less Colorado-directed
conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="40426" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, these allegations paint Pritzker and Valani
as passive recipients of information.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="40518" class="ldml-sentence">The remainder of <span class="ldml-entity">the
State</span>'s allegations against Pritzker and Valani describe
only conduct that is highly attenuated from JUUL's
alleged wrongdoing.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="40670" class="ldml-sentence">For example, in an attempt to demonstrate
that Pritzker and
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="27" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_40733" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
Valani participated in youth marketing, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> points to
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> Pritzker's request that JUUL send free products to an
<em class="ldml-emphasis">adult</em> member of a popular band and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> Valani's
question regarding how to make a photo of an <em class="ldml-emphasis">adult</em>
celebrity holding a JUUL device <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"go viral."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="41000" class="ldml-sentence">Lastly,
in an attempt to establish that Valani participated in the
allegedly deceptive messaging, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> claims that Valani
forwarded a <em class="ldml-emphasis">New York Times</em> <span class="ldml-entity">article</span> entitled,
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The Formaldehyde in Your E-Cigs."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="39822" data-sentence-id="41211" class="ldml-sentence">The simple acts
of sending products to an adult consumer, commenting on a
photo, or forwarding an email do not, however, indicate that
Pritzker or Valani engaged in JUUL's alleged wrongdoing,
much less that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> engaged in wrongdoing directed at
Colorado.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="41472" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="41472" data-sentence-id="41483" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41483"><span class="ldml-cite">¶55</span></a></span>
Indeed, many of the facts alleged by <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> belie its
assertions that Pritzker and Valani <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"approved of,
directed, actively participated in, or cooperated in . . .
deceptive and unconscionable marketing."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="41472" data-sentence-id="41698" class="ldml-sentence">For example,
Pritzker expressed his concern that JUUL's branding felt
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"too young,"</span> and Valani favorably commented on a
letter to the editor of the <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_41698"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Denver Post</em></span></a></span> in which
JUUL's CEO stated that the company was
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"appalled"</span> that JUUL had taken off with youth.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="41472" data-sentence-id="41957" class="ldml-sentence">Valani further requested updates on JUUL's efforts to
hire a <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"credible head"</span> of youth policy.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="41472" data-sentence-id="42052" class="ldml-sentence">Collectively, these comments tend to show that Pritzker and
Valani <em class="ldml-emphasis">dis</em>approved of <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(or at least had concerns
about)</span> JUUL's alleged attempts to target youth and sought
to engage <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"credible"</span> sources of information rather
than
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="28" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_42280" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
deceptive ones, thereby undermining <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s effort to
premise personal jurisdiction on these directors'
purported approval of, direction, active participation in, or
cooperation in deceptive marketing.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="42491" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="42491" data-sentence-id="42502" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42502"><span class="ldml-cite">¶56</span></a></span>
Third, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleges no facts supporting a conclusion
that any of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> expressly aimed their conduct at
Colorado, as required under the second prong of the effects
test.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42491" data-sentence-id="42690" class="ldml-sentence">Indeed, it appears that the only Colorado-specific
contacts alleged by <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> were that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> JUUL held
sampling events and sold JUUL products in Colorado stores;
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"youthful images"</span> from JUUL's
board-approved marketing plan were shown in marketing
displays in Colorado convenience stores, and brand
ambassadors who attended the sampling events were instructed
to direct consumers to JUUL's website if <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had any
health- or safety-related questions; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> JUUL's CEO
authored a letter to the editor that was published in the
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_42690"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-refname">Denver</span> <span class="ldml-cite">Post</span></em></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42491" data-sentence-id="43245" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> does not allege, however,
that any of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> planned or attended the sampling
events.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42491" data-sentence-id="43347" class="ldml-sentence">Nor does <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> allege that any of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
drafted the letter <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(or, for that matter, that the letter
misrepresented JUUL's products)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="42491" data-sentence-id="43488" class="ldml-sentence">As a result, <span class="ldml-entity">the
district court</span> itself acknowledged that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"in its 145
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[sic]</span> pages, nowhere does the <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[amended complaint]</span> attempt to
describe the individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' connections to
Colorado."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="42491" data-sentence-id="43684" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> agree, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> therefore conclude that the
allegations in the amended complaint do not satisfy the
express aiming requirement of the effects test.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="29" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_43835" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="43835" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="43835" data-sentence-id="43846" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_43846"><span class="ldml-cite">¶57</span></a></span>
Perhaps recognizing the absence of individualized conduct
expressly aimed at Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> contends that an
individual corporate director's participation in their
company's nationwide actions satisfies the express aiming
requirement, at least when the individual knows that the
company's actions will reach the forum state through the
company's continuous and deliberate exploitation of the
forum state's market.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="43835" data-sentence-id="44277" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have not previously
addressed this issue directly, a division of our <span class="ldml-entity">court of
appeals</span> has done so, and its reasoning is instructive.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="44424" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="44424" data-sentence-id="44435" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44435"><span class="ldml-cite">¶58</span></a></span>
In <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44435"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Giduck v. Niblett</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2014 COA 86</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44435"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 20</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44435"><span class="ldml-cite">408
P.3d 856, 864</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>, a Colorado attorney, alleged
that a group of non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> had posted defamatory
statements about him on a website and that these statements
were subsequently published on other websites, including
Amazon and Facebook.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44424" data-sentence-id="44749" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44435"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="44424" data-sentence-id="44753" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The plaintiff</span> asserted that
<span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span> knew that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> was a Colorado resident and
member of the Colorado bar and that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> agreed to, and did,
publish false statements about him to harm his reputation as
a Colorado attorney.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44424" data-sentence-id="44984" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_44753"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="44424" data-sentence-id="44988" class="ldml-sentence">Although <span class="ldml-entity">the plaintiff</span>
argued that these actions supported jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the
defendants</span>, the division disagreed.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44424" data-sentence-id="45107" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45107"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span></a></span> at
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45107"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 20-21</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45107"><span class="ldml-cite">408 P.3d at 864</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44424" data-sentence-id="45142" class="ldml-sentence">Relying on <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">the Supreme
Court</span>'s conclusion in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893972090" data-vids="893972090" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45142"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Walden</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">571 U.S. at 290</span></a></span></span>,
that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[r]</span>egardless of where <span class="ldml-entity">a plaintiff</span> lives or works,
an injury is jurisdictionally relevant only insofar as it
shows that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendant</span> has formed a contact with the forum
State,"</span> the division determined
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="30" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_45426" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
that <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span>' widely distributed statements did
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not focus on Colorado"</span> and therefore did <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"not
provide sufficient minimum contacts to subject <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> to
personal jurisdiction"</span> here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="44424" data-sentence-id="45623" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45623"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Giduck</em></span></a></span>, at
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45623"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 23-24</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45623"><span class="ldml-cite">408 P.3d at 865</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-cert">quoting</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/893972090" data-vids="893972090" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45623"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Walden</em></span>,
<span class="ldml-cite">571 U.S. at 290</span></a></span>)</span></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="45697" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="45697" data-sentence-id="45708" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45708"><span class="ldml-cite">¶59</span></a></span>
This analysis is consistent with recent <span class="ldml-entity">case law</span> from the
Tenth Circuit.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45697" data-sentence-id="45787" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_45787"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Eighteen Seventy</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">32 F.4th at
959-61</span></a></span>, for example, two Wyoming entities alleged that
Jayson, a resident of the United Kingdom, had, through
misrepresentations and omissions, induced their investments
in a foreign company of which Jayson was a director and chief
financial officer.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="45697" data-sentence-id="46076" class="ldml-sentence">Noting that Jayson had never visited
Wyoming and that there was <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"nothing unique about <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the
<span class="ldml-entity">plaintiff</span> entities]</span>, much less Wyoming, that led Mr. Jayson
to prepare fraudulent materials,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> concluded
that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"the focal point of Mr. Jayson's allegedly
tortious acts clearly was not Wyoming and, relatedly, that
any contacts by Mr. Jayson with Wyoming were too attenuated
to allow <span class="ldml-entity">a court</span> to exercise jurisdiction over him."</span></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="45697" data-sentence-id="46508" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46076"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at 975</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="46520" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="46520" data-sentence-id="46531" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46531"><span class="ldml-cite">¶60</span></a></span>
The same is true here.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46520" data-sentence-id="46559" class="ldml-sentence">Any actions that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> took in
relation to JUUL's nationwide marketing campaign were not
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"expressly aimed"</span> at Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46520" data-sentence-id="46686" class="ldml-sentence">Similar to the
allegedly defamatory statements in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889521982" data-vids="889521982" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46686"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Giduck</em></span></a></span> and the
fraudulent materials in <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_46686"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Eighteen Seventy</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
did not direct JUUL's alleged messaging and materials at
any particular geographic location.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46520" data-sentence-id="46901" class="ldml-sentence">Nor does anything in the
amended complaint suggest that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> targeted
influencers in Colorado,
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="31" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_47006" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
prioritized launching JUUL's products in Colorado over
other states, or tailored any of its materials to appeal to
Colorado consumers.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="46520" data-sentence-id="47145" class="ldml-sentence">And although <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> alleges that
Monsees communicated with a JUUL sales representative who in
turn spoke with a representative of Kroger, which then sold
JUUL products in its Colorado stores, this interaction
exemplifies the kind of attenuated contacts that <span class="ldml-entity">the court in
<span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/907215553" data-vids="907215553" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47145"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Eighteen Seventy</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">32 F.4th at 975</span></a></span></span>, concluded did not
satisfy the express aiming requirement.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="47518" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="47518" data-sentence-id="47529" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47529"><span class="ldml-cite">¶61</span></a></span>
Because <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> cannot satisfy the first or second prongs
of the effects test <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., intentional action expressly aimed
at Colorado)</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> has not established
personal jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> in <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="47518" data-sentence-id="47772" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not reach the third prong of the effects
test.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="47841" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="47841" data-sentence-id="47852" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_47852"><span class="ldml-cite">¶62</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are not persuaded otherwise by the out-of-state <span class="ldml-entity">cases</span> on
which <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> relies.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47841" data-sentence-id="47941" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> particularly urges <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> to
consider two decisions in which the <span class="ldml-entity">federal district court</span>
for the <span class="ldml-entity">Northern District of California</span> concluded that five
states involved in a multi-district litigation action could
properly exercise personal jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">the defendants</span>,
including the four individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> who are now before
<span class="ldml-entity">this court</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47841" data-sentence-id="48294" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><em class="ldml-emphasis"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </em><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_48373,sentence_47941" data-refglobal="case:inrejuullabs,inc,marketing,salespractices,andproductsliabilitylitigationcaseno19-md-02913-who533fsupp3d858april13,2021"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">In re JUUL Labs, Inc.</em> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<em class="ldml-emphasis">JUUL
II</em>)</span></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">533 F.Supp.3d 858, 879</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">N.D. Cal.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2021</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">concluding
that personal jurisdiction existed over Pritzker and Valani</span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span>
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_48524,sentence_47941" data-refglobal="case:inrejuullabs,inc,marketing,salespractices,andproductsliabilitylitigationcaseno19-md-02913-who497fsupp3d552october23,2020"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">In re JUUL Labs, Inc.</em> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<em class="ldml-emphasis">JUUL I</em>)</span></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">497
F.Supp.3d 552, 675-77</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">N.D. Cal.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">denying Bowen and
Monsees' <span class="ldml-entity">motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="32" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_48605" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
based on their <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"involvement in the development and
implementation of the challenged nationwide marketing
campaign and its intended effects in the forum states"</span></span>)</span></span>.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="47841" data-sentence-id="48771" class="ldml-sentence">Obviously, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not bound by <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">these district court</span>
decisions</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47841" data-sentence-id="48835" class="ldml-sentence">And in any event, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are not convinced by their
limited analyses.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47841" data-sentence-id="48902" class="ldml-sentence">For example, in <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48902" data-refglobal="case:inrejuullabs,inc,marketing,salespractices,andproductsliabilitylitigationcaseno19-md-02913-who497fsupp3d552october23,2020"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">JUUL I</em></span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span>
acknowledged the express aiming requirement but then glossed
over it entirely, focusing instead on JUUL's nationwide
conduct.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47841" data-sentence-id="49065" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_48902" data-refglobal="case:inrejuullabs,inc,marketing,salespractices,andproductsliabilitylitigationcaseno19-md-02913-who497fsupp3d552october23,2020"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">JUUL I</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">497 F.Supp.3d at 675-77</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="47841" data-sentence-id="49098" class="ldml-sentence">As set
forth above, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> do not agree that personal jurisdiction over
corporate directors can be predicated on a corporation's
nationwide contacts alone.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="49253" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="49253" data-sentence-id="49264" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49264"><span class="ldml-cite">¶63</span></a></span>
In our view, <span class="ldml-entity">the <span class="ldml-entity">New York Supreme Court</span>'s decision in
<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49264" data-refglobal="case:proposedconsentorderandjudgment,peoplevjuullabsinc,indexno452168"><span class="ldml-refname"><em class="ldml-emphasis">People ex rel. James v. JUUL Labs, Inc.</em></span>, <span class="ldml-cite">No.
452168</span></a></span></span>/<span class="ldml-entity">2019</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49264" data-refglobal="case:2022wl2757512,at3-6nysupctjuly14,2022"><span class="ldml-cite">2022 WL 2757512, at *3-6</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">N.Y. Sup. Ct.</span> <span class="ldml-date">July 14,
2022</span>)</span></a></span>, which involved the same <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span> and jurisdictional
questions as are now before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, is analytically more sound.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="49253" data-sentence-id="49552" class="ldml-sentence">There, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> summarized the alleged contacts between <span class="ldml-entity">the
defendants</span> and New York, noting <span class="ldml-entity">the People</span>'s allegations
that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> Monsees and Bowen were part of a public relations
strategy that was aimed at New York, and both were scheduled
to meet with the press and with investors while in New York
for JUUL's launch; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> Bowen had sent an email to a
member of the JUUL marketing team commenting on how to
increase the number of New Yorkers trying JUUL e-cigarettes;
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> while in New York, Valani had sent comments to JUUL
senior management regarding defaced marketing materials;
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="33" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_50142" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(4)</span> Valani had worked with JUUL's marketing team to
ensure that JUUL products were available at a Met Gala
afterparty in Manhattan; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(5)</span> Monsees, Bowen, Pritzker, and
Valani had attended board meetings at which New York was
identified as a focus of the launch campaign; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(6)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">these
defendants</span> were provided information regarding the success of
the New York launch; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(7)</span> Valani had been involved in meetings
to discuss a strategy for responding to <span class="ldml-entity">New York City</span>
anti-tobacco <span class="ldml-entity">legislation</span>; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(8)</span> Monsees, Pritzker, and
Valani had met and communicated with New York investors in
New York, and this meeting had resulted in an investment by a
New York-based investment firm.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="49253" data-sentence-id="50821" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_49552" data-refglobal="case:2022wl2757512,at3-6nysupctjuly14,2022"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at *3-4</span></a></span>.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="50834" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="50845" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50845"><span class="ldml-cite">¶64</span></a></span>
The <span class="ldml-entity">New York court</span> found that the amended complaint in <span class="ldml-entity">that
case</span> contained sufficient allegations to establish personal
jurisdiction over Monsees and Bowen, in part because the two
men had actively participated in the deceptive marketing
aimed at teens in New York, including attending the New York
launch campaign, and thus <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> had personally transacted
business in New York.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="51234" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_50845" data-refglobal="case:2022wl2757512,at3-6nysupctjuly14,2022"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at *5</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="51245" class="ldml-sentence">With regard to
Pritzker and Valani, however, <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> came to the opposite
conclusion, explaining that although these two <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"knew of and approved the marketing of JUUL's
product, JUUL marketed the product throughout the country and
not just in New York."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="51514" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51245" data-refglobal="case:2022wl2757512,at3-6nysupctjuly14,2022"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em> at *6</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="51525" class="ldml-sentence">This, <span class="ldml-entity">the
court</span> opined, was insufficient to establish that <span class="ldml-entity">these
defendants</span> personally transacted business in New York.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="51647" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_51647"><span class="ldml-cite"><em class="ldml-emphasis">Id.</em></span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="34" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_51651" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
<span class="ldml-cite">¶65</span></a></span>
The factual allegations in the New York case stand in sharp
contrast to those now before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="51761" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> never
alleges that JUUL identified Colorado as a priority or that
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> visited Colorado for business purposes.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="51896" class="ldml-sentence">Nor does
it contend that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> engaged in communications
regarding the number of Coloradans who have tried JUUL.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="50834" data-sentence-id="52016" class="ldml-sentence">Instead, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> contends only that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> participated
to some extent in JUUL's nationwide efforts to market its
product.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="52147" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="52158" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_52158"><span class="ldml-cite">¶66</span></a></span>
<span class="ldml-entity">We</span> likewise are unpersuaded by <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s and amicus
curiae's public policy concerns.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="52250" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>
and its amicus curiae respectively contend that <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> denying
the existence of personal jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> here
would mean <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"that <span class="ldml-entity">a defendant</span> does not target Colorado
if, at the same time, it also targets other states,"</span> and
<span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> our decision today will permit non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> to
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"claim immunity from suit because <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have not
physically set foot in <span class="ldml-entity">the state</span>."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="52657" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> disagree with both
of these contentions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="52702" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">A defendant</span> can certainly target
multiple states simultaneously, and had the record shown that
<span class="ldml-entity">these defendants</span> individually targeted Colorado, among other
states, then our conclusion might have been different.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="52916" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, nothing in our decision today suggests that
non-resident <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> can claim immunity merely because
<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-entity">they</span> have not physically set foot"</span> in Colorado.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="53079" class="ldml-sentence">As
discussed above, the proper inquiry is whether <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
expressly aimed any conduct here, and this requirement can,
in certain circumstances, be satisfied absent any physical
presence in this state.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="35" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_53287" data-page_type="bare_number"></span>
<span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="53288" class="ldml-sentence">And <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> perceive nothing in our analysis that can reasonably
be read to immunize <span class="ldml-entity">these defendants</span> from their alleged
actions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="53415" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The State</span> is free to bring suit where <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> are
subject to personal jurisdiction.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="52147" data-sentence-id="53503" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> merely conclude that
<span class="ldml-entity">these defendants</span> are not subject to personal jurisdiction
here.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="53593" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="53593" data-sentence-id="53604" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_53604"><span class="ldml-cite">¶67</span></a></span>
In contrast to <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s policy arguments, <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
contend that, were <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> to accept <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span>'s assertion
that conduct need not be specially directed at the forum
state to satisfy the express aiming requirements, directors
of a corporation that does business nationwide would
potentially be subject to personal jurisdiction in every
state, regardless of their lack of connection to a particular
forum.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53593" data-sentence-id="54022" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> assert, this is simply not the law, and
adopting such a principle would impose significant costs on
board service and could dramatically drive up the costs of
doing business in Colorado <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(by, for example, substantially
increasing the premiums for directors and officers liability
insurance)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="53593" data-sentence-id="54332" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> cannot perceive how such a result would
advance any sound public policy of this state.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="54423" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="54423" data-sentence-id="54434" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54434"><span class="ldml-cite">¶68</span></a></span>
For these reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> did not plead
facts sufficient to establish that the individual <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
now before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> purposefully directed wrongful conduct at
Colorado or that the injuries alleged in the amended
complaint arose out of or related to <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>'
Colorado-directed activities.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="54423" data-sentence-id="54753" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> further
conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> did not make the requisite prima
facie showing of personal jurisdiction over <span class="ldml-entity">these defendants</span>.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="36" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_54898" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="54898" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="54898" data-sentence-id="54909" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_54909"><span class="ldml-cite">¶69</span></a></span>
In light of this determination, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> need not address the
question of whether exercising personal jurisdiction over
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span> here would be unreasonable.</span>
</p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-parsed="true" data-value="III.
Conclusion" data-content-heading-label="
III.
Conclusion
" data-id="heading_55069" data-types="conclusion" data-confidences="very_high" data-ordinal_start="3" data-specifier="III" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" id="heading_55069" data-ordinal_end="3"><span data-paragraph-id="55069" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="55069" data-sentence-id="55080" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span>
<span data-paragraph-id="55069" data-sentence-id="55085" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b>
</span></section><p data-paragraph-id="55096" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="55096" data-sentence-id="55107" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55107"><span class="ldml-cite">¶70</span></a></span>
Because <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> based its determination on
allegations directed against JUUL and the group of <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
as a whole, rather than on an individualized assessment of
each <span class="ldml-entity">defendant</span>'s actions, and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> did not
allege sufficient facts to establish either that <span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>
were primary participants in wrongful conduct that <span class="ldml-entity">they</span>
purposefully directed at Colorado, or that the injuries
alleged in the amended complaint arose out of or related to
<span class="ldml-entity">defendants</span>' Colorado-directed activities, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude
that <span class="ldml-entity">the district court</span> erred in finding that <span class="ldml-entity">the State</span> had
made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction in this
matter.</span>
</p><p data-paragraph-id="55768" class="ldml-paragraph ">
<span data-paragraph-id="55768" data-sentence-id="55779" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_55779"><span class="ldml-cite">¶71</span></a></span>
Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> make our rule to show cause absolute and
remand <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span> for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.</span>
<span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-val="37" data-confidence="low" data-id="pagenumber_55914" data-page_type="bare_number"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>