To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead "sufficient...

To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must plead "sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that the defendant[ ] can be subjected to jurisdiction within the state." K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588, 591-92 (8th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). But where [ ] the parties submit affidavits to bolster their positions on the motion, and the district court relies on the evidence, the motion is in substance one for summary judgment. Radaszewski ex rel. Radaszewski v. Telecom Corp., 981 F.2d 305, 309-10 (8th Cir. 1992); cf. Blair v. Wills, 420 F.3d 823, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the issue of personal jurisdiction, and must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at trial or when the court holds an evidentiary hearing. Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1387 (8th Cir. 1991). At the motion stage, the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], is sufficient to support a conclusion that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over [the defendant] is proper. See Radaszewski ex rel. Radaszewski, 981 F.2d at 309-10; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Creative Calling Solutions, Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., (8th Cir. 2015).

• • • •

A federal court sitting in diversity may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporate defendant only when two conditions are satisfied. First, the forum state's long-arm statute must confer personal jurisdiction. Second, the court's "exercise of such jurisdiction [must be] consistent with due process under the United States Constitution." Latshaw v. Johnston, 167 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1999). . . . . "The Due Process Clause . . . sets the outer boundaries of a [court's] authority to proceed against a defendant," Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853 (2011), and protects a nonresident defendant against suit in a forum with which it has established no meaningful "contacts, ties, or relations," Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945). Eddy v. Printers House (P) Limited, (5th Cir. 2015).

To determine whether due process permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction, [courts] ask whether two requirements are met. First, the nonresident defendant must have "purposefully availed [itself] of the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing 'minimum contacts' with the forum state." Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 215 (5th Cir. 2000). Second, "the exercise of jurisdiction over that defendant [must] not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Id. (quoting Mink, 190 F.3d at 336). If either of these requirements is not satisfied, a district court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. Eddy v. Printers House (P) Limited, ibid.

• • • •

The Due Process Clause permits the exercise of "general jurisdiction" to hear "any and all claims against" a defendant if its "affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Specific jurisdiction," by contrast, is proper when a defendant has certain contacts with the forum State and the cause of action arises out of those contacts. Id. Creative Calling Solutions, Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., ibid.

General jurisdiction is "all-purpose"; it exists only "when the [party's] affiliations with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home in the forum State." Id. (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, _ U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011)) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Specific jurisdiction is case-specific; the claim must be linked to the activities or contacts with the forum. Id. Kipp v. Ski Enterprise Corp. of Wisconsin, Inc., 783 F. 3d 695 (7th Cir. 2015).

"A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations," without offending due process "when their affiliations with the State are so 'continuous and systematic' as to render them essentially at home in the forum State." Goodyear, 131 S.Ct. at 2851 (quoting Int'l. Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 317, 66 S.Ct. at 159). "[O]nly a limited set of affiliations with a forum will render a defendant amenable to all-purpose jurisdiction there." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. _, 134 S.Ct. 746, 760, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). A corporation's place of incorporation and its principal place of business are "paradigm all-purpose forums." Id. And "a corporation's operations in a forum other than its formal place of incorporation or principal place of business" will be "so substantial and of such a nature as to render the corporation at home in that State" only in "exceptional" cases. Id. at 761 n. 19. Carmouche v. Tamborlee Management, Inc., 789 F. 3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2015).

Because the assertion of judicial authority over a defendant is much broader in the case of general jurisdiction than specific jurisdiction, a plaintiff invoking general jurisdiction must meet an "exacting standard" for the minimum contacts required. Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015).

• • • •

Specific jurisdiction exists when a case "aris[es] out of or relate[s] to the defendant's contacts with the forum." Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). It "depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, _ U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, it is "specific" to the case before the court. General jurisdiction, in contrast, permits a court to hear "any and all claims" against a defendant, whether or not the conduct at issue has any connection to the forum. Id.; see Martinez, 764 F.3d at 1066 ("[G]eneral jurisdiction ... allows a defendant to be haled into court in the forum state to answer for any of its activities anywhere in the world." (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). Ranza v. Nike, Inc., ibid.

Due process requires that a defendant have certain "minimum contacts" with the forum State for the State to exercise specific jurisdiction. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980). This connection must be based on "some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75 (1985) (internal quotation mark omitted). The defendant's contacts with the forum must thus be more than "random, fortuitous, or attenuated," and must permit the defendant to "reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Creative Calling Solutions, Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., ibid.

"'[T]he commission of some single or occasional acts of the corporate agent in a state' may sometimes be enough." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 318). Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices, (2nd Cir. 2015).

"Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 N.Y.3d 375, 380 (2007) (quotation marks omitted). Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices, ibid..

If minimum contacts exist, the defendant has to "present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable." Licci, 732 F.3d at 173 (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)) (quotation mark omitted). These considerations include

"(1) the burden that the exercise of jurisdiction will impose on the defendant; (2) the interests of the forum state in adjudicating the case; (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of the controversy; and (5) the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies."
Chloé, 616 F.3d at 164. Ultimately, the exercise of personal jurisdiction is reasonable if it "would comport with fair play and substantial justice." Licci, 732 F.3d at 170 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476). Eades v. Kennedy, PC Law Offices, ibid.

To assess whether a defendant has purposefully availed itself of the forum and established minimum contacts, we examine the nature, quality, and quantity of the defendant's contacts with the forum State and the connection between the cause of action and those contacts. See Digi-Tel Holdings, Inc. v. Proteq Telecomm. (PTE), Ltd., 89 F.3d 519, 522-23 (8th Cir. 1996). For contractual claims, personal jurisdiction is proper where the defendant "reach[es] out beyond one state and create[s] continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state." Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 473 (internal quotation marks omitted). But a contract with a citizen of a State alone is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with that forum. Id. at 478. To determine whether a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum, we must evaluate "prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences, along with the terms of the contract and the parties' actual course of dealing." Id. at 479. Creative Calling Solutions, Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., ibid.

"Specific jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation is appropriate when that corporation has purposefully directed its activities at the forum state and the 'litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.'" Alpine View, 205 F.3d at 215 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472). In cases involving products sold or manufactured by foreign defendants, we apply the "stream-of-commerce" approach to personal jurisdiction. Ainsworth v. Moffett Eng'g, Ltd., 716 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 2013). Under this approach, minimum contacts exist when the court "finds that the defendant delivered the product into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be purchased by or used by consumers in the forum state." Id. (quoting Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 1987)). However, "mere foreseeability or awareness [that a product would enter the forum state is] a constitutionally sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction [only] if the defendant's product made its way into the forum state while still in the stream of commerce." Id. (quoting Luv N' care, 438 F.3d at 470). Additionally, "[t]he defendant's contacts [with the forum state] must be more than 'random, fortuitous, or attenuated, or [the result] of the unilateral activity of another party or third person.'" Id. (quoting ITL Int'l, Inc. v. Constenla, S.A., 669 F.3d 493, 498 (5th Cir. 2012)). Eddy v. Printers House (P) Limited, ibid.

• • • •

To make out a Fifth Amendment challenge to personal jurisdiction, [d]efendants ha[ve] to show that "the district court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over [them] would result in 'such extreme inconvenience or unfairness as would outweigh the congressionally articulated policy' evidenced by a nationwide service of process provision." Denny's, Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 524 n. 2 (4th Cir.2004) (quoting ESAB, 126 F.3d at 627). Normally, when a defendant is a United States resident, it is "highly unusual ... that inconvenience will rise to a level of constitutional concern." ESAB, 126 F.3d at 627 (internal quotation marks omitted). Trustees of The Plumbers v. Plumbing Services, 791 F. 3d 436 (4th Cir. 2015).

[T]he "minimum contacts" standard is the rule that courts consider when assessing whether personal jurisdiction is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707, 711 (4th Cir.2002). That standard, however, is not relevant when the basis for jurisdiction is found in a federal statute containing a nationwide service of process provision. Trustees of The Plumbers v. Plumbing Services, ibid.

• • • •

"Quasi in rem actions are based on a claim for money begun by attachment or other seizure of property when the district court has no jurisdiction over the person of the [judgment] defendant, but has jurisdiction over either property that the court can apply to the satisfaction of the defendant's debt or persons who themselves owe an obligation to the defendant that the court can apply to the satisfaction of the debt." Stena Rederei AB v. Comision de Contratos del Comite Ejecutivo General del Sindicato Revolucionario de Trabajadores Petroleros de la Republica Mexicana, S.C., 923 F.2d 380, 391 (5th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). Licea v. Curacao Drydock Company, (5th Cir. 2015).

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 207 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply the doctrine of personal jurisdiction. The selection of decisions spans from 2004 to the date of publication.