Calls to NJ Assisted Living sufficient contacts for Domestic violence jurisdiction S.S. v. L.L.

Calls to NJ Assisted Living sufficient contacts for Domestic violence jurisdiction S.S. v. L.L.

Defendant appealed from the entry of a restraining order in favor of plaintiff.  

Defendant appealed from the entry of a restraining order in favor of plaintiff. At the time of entry of the FRO, plaintiff was 89 years old and defendant was 78. Plaintiff suffered from mobility issues and required a walker or wheelchair, while defendant enjoyed good health and remained physically active. 

The parties had been in a relationship for two years before deciding to live together in plaintiff's home in Florida. However, plaintiff evicted defendant from her home after one month due to defendant's verbal abuse. 

       Although defendant resided with plaintiff again following a hurricane, their relationship continued to deteriorate, until 2019 when plaintiff's daughter flew to Florida to help plaintiff move to New Jersey due to defendant's continuing abusive conduct and refusal to vacate plaintiff's residence despite owning his own unit in the same condominium complex.

 Upon arriving in New Jersey, plaintiff applied for a restraining order. The trial court granted a TRO, which gave plaintiff exclusive possession of her residence in Florida. At a hearing, plaintiff's daughter informed the trial court that defendant had violated the TRO by attempting to contact plaintiff at her independent living facility in New Jersey. After defendant retained counsel, he moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff argued that the trial court could exercise personal jurisdiction due to defendant's contacts with New Jersey following the TRO. The trial court denied defendant's motion, agreeing with plaintiff's argument. 

 Following a hearing, the trial court entered a FRO, finding that defendant had committed harassment contempt by intentionally violating the TRO by calling plaintiff's living facility. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding personal jurisdiction because the alleged conduct occurred in Florida. The court rejected defendant's argument and affirmed the entry of the FRO, holding that defendant's calling of plaintiff's living facility provided sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction.

https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/almID/1607369159NJA085619T/