Obtained an order of dismissal from the U.S. District Court based on lack of personal jurisdiction in a legal malpractice case. The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, alleged that the defendant, a Georgia attorney, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by opening an account with a collections agency and then conspiring with the co-defendant to use the collections agency to run illegal credit inquiries and to request consumer reports regarding the plaintiffs, a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, ("FCRA") 15 U.S.C. §1681(n), 1681(o). The court granted the defense's motion to dismiss, finding that there was no personal jurisdiction over the attorney in New Jersey. The plaintiffs argued that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants because FCRA case law confers jurisdiction over "a non-resident defendant who obtains credit reports without permission of the resident plaintiff." The court agreed with the defense's argument that it should analyze personal jurisdiction in accordance with the "effects test" set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). Under that test, New Jersey was not the focal point of the tortious activity as to support personal jurisdiction over the attorney's activities that took place in Georgia and Alabama. While other circuits have held that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a FCRA action, in the Third Circuit, the effects test of Calder prevents a defendant from being haled into a jurisdiction solely on the allegation that the defendant intentionally caused harm to the plaintiff in New Jersey from the foreign state.