Skip to main content

John Riebsame v. Brad Schemel

Tenn. Ct. App.September 24, 2019No. E2018-01798-COA-R3-CV
Defendant WinHolland Enterprises
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Andy D. Bennett
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that the defendant's alleged phone calls made from North Dakota did not establish sufficient contacts with Tennessee. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal.

Excerpt

The facts before the court on appeal depend upon the procedural posture of the case. John Riebsame, a former employee of Holland Enterprises ("Holland"), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee on June 18, 2018, against Bradley Schemel, the vice president of Holland, a trucking company headquartered in Mapleton, North Dakota. On July 20, 2018, Mr. Schemel filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(2) and (4) for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. With his motion, Mr. Schemel submitted his own affidavit, the contents of which will be detailed as relevant below.

What This Ruling Means

**What This Case Was About:** John Riebsame, a former employee of Holland Enterprises (a trucking company based in North Dakota), sued Bradley Schemel, the company's vice president, in Tennessee court in June 2018. However, Schemel fought back by asking the Tennessee court to dismiss the case entirely. He argued that the Tennessee court didn't have the legal authority to hear a case against him (since he likely lived and worked in North Dakota) and that he wasn't properly notified about the lawsuit. **What the Court Decided:** The court was reviewing whether the lower court was right to consider dismissing the case on these technical grounds. Unfortunately, the available information doesn't show what the final decision was - only that this was an appeal of the dismissal motion. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights an important challenge workers face when suing employers or managers from other states. Even if you have a valid complaint against your employer, you may need to file your lawsuit in the state where the company or the person you're suing is located, not necessarily where you live or worked. This can make legal action more expensive and complicated for workers, especially when dealing with companies that operate across state lines.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.