In a recent ruling, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Damien Dernoncourt against UBS AG. The court determined that UBS AG did not have enough connections to Washington state to allow the court to exercise personal jurisdiction. This ruling affects individuals who may seek to file lawsuits against foreign corporations in Washington.

The case, filed under docket number 88890-1, centers around allegations made by Dernoncourt, a French national residing in Hong Kong. He claimed that UBS AG, along with Credit Suisse AG, orchestrated a campaign of surveillance against him that included hacking into his email account. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of establishing personal jurisdiction when filing a lawsuit against a foreign entity.

Background

Damien Dernoncourt filed his initial complaint in April 2024 in King County Superior Court against Credit Suisse AG and UBS Group AG, alleging four tort claims. Dernoncourt accused Credit Suisse AG of surveilling him from 2016 to 2019, driven by the bank's CEO's alleged romantic involvement with his then-wife. He claimed that this surveillance included unauthorized access to his Microsoft 365 email account, which he argued constituted a tortious act.

Both banks entered notices of appearance shortly after the complaint was filed. UBS Group AG later moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Dernoncourt failed to demonstrate that Washington had personal jurisdiction over them. Dernoncourt contended that the hacking incident, which he claimed occurred through Microsoft, established sufficient grounds for jurisdiction under Washington's long-arm statute.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's dismissal of Dernoncourt's claims against UBS AG. The court found that he did not provide adequate evidence to support the existence of personal jurisdiction. The court stated, "Dernoncourt has not gathered any evidence that would support the exercise of personal jurisdiction." Furthermore, it emphasized that the alleged injuries did not arise from any contacts between UBS AG and Washington state.

The court explained that for personal jurisdiction to exist, there must be purposeful minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum state. It noted that Dernoncourt's claims were based solely on the actions of Microsoft, a third party, and not on UBS AG's direct actions in Washington. The court concluded, "Dernoncourt failed to carry his burden to make a prima facie showing that UBS AG has sufficient minimum contacts with this state."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking to bring lawsuits against foreign corporations in Washington. It reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to establish a clear connection between the defendant's actions and the state in which they are filing the lawsuit. This case illustrates the challenges that plaintiffs may face when attempting to assert personal jurisdiction over foreign entities, particularly when the alleged wrongful conduct occurs outside the state.

The court's decision also highlights the importance of jurisdictional discovery. Despite a year of discovery efforts, Dernoncourt was unable to provide evidence that would link UBS AG to Washington. This outcome suggests that plaintiffs must be diligent in gathering evidence to support their claims of jurisdiction, especially when dealing with foreign corporations.

What's Next

As of now, it is unclear whether Dernoncourt plans to appeal the court's decision. The ruling effectively ends his claims against UBS AG in Washington state. There may also be related cases pending, but details were not available in the court filing.