After being terminated, Plaintiff David Waldron filed suit against his former employer, a corporation called Atradius. Waldron alleged breach of contract and a violation of the Maryland Wage Payment Collection Law ("MWPCL"). Atradius filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a Motion to Transfer Venue, claiming it does not engage in business in Maryland. Atradius also maintained its activities do not directly target Maryland residents.

Atradius' principal place of business in the U.S. is in Illinois, with headquarters in Amsterdam. Additionally, it is affiliated with another corporation, Atradius Trade Credit Insurance Inc. ("ATCI"), located in Hunt Valley, Maryland. After a series of negotiations, the director of Atradius at the Amsterdam headquarters sent Waldron a written offer of employment. Waldron received the offer at his Maryland residence, and the letter was printed on ATCI letterhead bearing a Baltimore return address. Atradius asserts the letterhead was an administrative error.

The employment agreement offered Waldron a position in Illinois, requiring he relocate. Yet, Atradius later permitted Waldron to remain in Maryland for two years until the housing market stabilized. Moreover, the contract required Waldron spend some time working in ACTI's Maryland Office. Waldron never relocated and stayed in a long-term hotel while working in Illinois. Atradius paid Waldron's expenses to return to Baltimore each month. Two years later, Atradius terminated Waldron for alleged inappropriate sexual behavior towards Illinois employees. Waldron filed this suit, denying such behavior and demanding six months of severance pay.

Judge Frederick Motz considered Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds, but chose instead to grant Defendant's alternative transfer of venue motion. While stating reasonable minds could differ on whether Maryland could constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over Atradius, Judge Motz stated jurisdiction would not likely be proper since he thought Atradius did not "purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within" Maryland. See Burger King Corp. v. Redzewiecz, 471 U.S. 462, 476-77 (1985).

Judge Motz first acknowledged that Maryland's long arm statute affords all the personal jurisdiction provided in the due process clause of the Constitution. Thus, in order for the Court to constitutionally exercise personal jurisdiction over Atradius, the company must have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Maryland. Additionally, jurisdiction would require that Waldron's claims arose out of Atradius' activities directed at Maryland. Because Waldron filed a breach of contract suit, jurisdiction would exist if Atradius' contract with Waldron constituted a substantial connection to the State of Maryland.

Judge Motz then balanced the facts of the case to determine if Atradius had established sufficient minimum contacts in Maryland to support jurisdiction. At first glance, the contacts might appear to support jurisdiction because Waldron received the formal offer of employment at his Maryland residence, the offer bore a return Baltimore address, Waldron never relinquished his Maryland residence during his employment, and the offer required that Waldron work at the Baltimore office at least once a month. On the other hand, the majority of Waldron's work was performed in Illinois and the behavior in question giving rise to his termination occurred in Illinois.

Moreover, the Court considered Burger King and subsequent case law that determined that the residency of one party to a contract and correspondence with the plaintiff in the forum state were insufficient to establish jurisdiction over a defendant who did not have other substantial contacts with the state. Judge Motz, acknowledging it was a close case, chose not to decide the constitutional issue of whether jurisdiction was proper. Rather, he granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue on public policy considerations.

Judge Motz found transfer to Illinois would be appropriate since transfer is permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) when convenience of the parties and the interests of justice so require. In this instance, Judge Motz considered that the alleged behavior culminating in Waldron's termination occurred in Illinois. All the witnesses to the dispute are likely in Illinois. Additionally, Waldron would not suffer an undue burden by suing in Illinois since he had routinely traveled between Illinois and Maryland for two years during the course of his employment.

After weighing the circumstances surrounding Atradius' contacts with Maryland, the Plaintiff's interest in his choice of forum, and other public policy considerations, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Illinois in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a).