The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota courts could exercise specific jurisdiction over MoneyMutual, LLC, an out-of-state defendant, with respect to claims brought by Minnesota residents for violations of that state’s consumer protection laws. The state supreme court’s decision hinged on the fact that MoneyMutual sent emails to more than 1,000 individuals whom it knew to be Minnesota residents, in which it matched those residents with predatory lenders offering unlawful payday loans. These emails were the culmination of transactions at the heart of plaintiffs’ claims. After the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its decision, the case was removed to federal court, where MoneyMutual again moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
MoneyMutual urges the Supreme Court to grant its petition for certiorari to address whether the “arising out of or related to” standard for the purpose of assessing specific jurisdiction requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s injuries. We represent respondents, who argue that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 to review the decision below because it is not even arguably final and because resolution of the question presented by MoneyMutual would have no effect on the outcome of the decision below. The Court denied the petition.