The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for want of personal jurisdiction over the Defendant non-profit corporation because the contract unambiguously required arbitration of all disputes arising from it, rejecting the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the clause as permissive and not mandatory. The Court also rejected jurisdiction over a related charitable trust fund because the Plaintiff was unable to show that it was a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of or somehow owned or controlled the defendant non-profit corporation. While the Plaintiff’s paychecks were drawn from the trust’s account and plaintiff regularly obtained approvals and provided updates to the trust, such acts were insufficient to establish a basis for personal jurisdiction.
