NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________ No. 22

- 1364

______ ROBERTO C. MARTINEZ; MIGUELINA MARTINEZ,

Appellants

v. UNION OFFICINE MECCANICHE S.P.A.;

ABC CORP. NOS. 1

– 5; JOHN DOES NOS. 1

– 5

_______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 2

- 20

- cv
- 07327) District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

____________ Argued: January 11, 2023 Before: JORDAN, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

.

(Filed: May 10, 202 3 )

____________ Sean T. Payne [ARGUED] Richard M. Winograd [ARGUED] G INARTE G ALLARDO G ONZALE Z & W INOGRAD 400 Market Street Newark, NJ 07105 Counsel for Appellants Alexander Pencu [ARGUED] Michael B. Sloan M EISTER S EELIG & F EIN 125 Park Avenue 7th Floor New York, NY 100172

Jeffrey Schreiber M EISTER S EELIG & F EIN 4E&F Auer Court Williamsburg Commons East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Counsel for Appellee

___________ OPINION *

___________

PHIPPS, Circuit Judge

. In 2019, w hile cleaning his employer’s plastic calend e r machine in New Jersey , Roberto C. Martinez got his hand caught between the rollers , and it was severely injured. Although the accident took place in New Jersey, the machine was designed and manufactured in Italy. New Jersey, through its long

- arm statute, see N.J. C t . R. 4:4

– 4, allows personal jurisdiction to the maximum extent permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment’s D ue P rocess Clause . And Martinez along with his wife sued the Italian manufacturer in New Jersey alleging three state

- law claims in their amended complaint : defe ctive design, inadequate warning labels, and loss of consortium. The District Court granted the manufacturer ’s motion to dismiss the Martinezes’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. Through a timely appeal of that final order, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the Martinez es contest the District Court’s ruling, which , on de novo review , we will affirm for the reasons that follow

. In response to a motion to dismiss for a lack of p ersonal j urisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing such jurisdiction. See Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine,

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.3

Inc. , 566 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2009). That requires evidence of “minimum contacts” with the forum state such that maintaining the suit would not “offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and subst antial justice.’” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). Here, the Martinezes do
not attempt to meet that burden through general jurisdiction

– which would require showing that the ma chine’s m anu f acturer , Union Officine Meccaniche S.P.A. (‘Union’) , was “ essentially at home” in New Jersey. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.
Brown , 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). Rather, t he y argue that Union was within New Jersey’s specific jurisdiction. When, as here, a d istrict c ourt does not hold an evidentiary hearing in response to a motion to dismiss , a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of j urisdiction on the written record. See 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1351 (3d ed. updated Apr. 2022)

. For specific jurisdiction, s uch a showing has two necessary components

. The f irst is the out

- of

- state defendant’s purposeful availment of the forum

. See Hanson v. Denckla , 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958) (“[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protectio ns of its laws.”). The s econd is a “ strong relationship ” between “the defendant, the forum, and the litigation

. ” Hepp v. Facebook , 14 F.4th 204, 208 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. , 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1028 (2021))

. If the written record, construed in favor of the plaintiff, see Metcalfe , 566 F.3d
at 330

– 31 , does not support those two components of a prima facie showing, then it is unnecessary to examine whether any “rare” and “compelling” circumstances would4

render the exercis e of personal jurisdiction unfair. O’Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co. , 496 F.3d 312, 324

– 25 (3d Cir. 2007)

. For the first requirement, the record does not establish that Union purposefully avail ed itself of New Jersey before or while selling the machine. In the specific context of the transmission of goods into a forum, purposeful availment requires the defendant to “have targeted the forum” d eliberately. J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro , 564 U.S. 873, 882 (2011) (plurali ty); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 475

– 76 (1985) (explaining that, as a general matter, a defendant purposefully avails itself of a forum by deliberate ly engag ing in significant activities there , or alternatively, by creati ng conti nuing obligations with forum residents). But before and while selling the machine, Union did not engage “in conduct purposefully directed at New Jersey .” J. McIntyre , 564 U.S. at 886. The record does not demonstrate that Union ever advertise d its products in New Jersey. And of the estimated 700 calender machines that Union manufactured since 1950, only this one went to New Jersey. Also, the decision to place the machine in New Jersey was not made by Union but rather by Martinez’s employer, P rimex Plastics Corporation , which selected the New Jersey facility over i ts facilities i n other states

. At most, an independent sales agent based in the United Kingdom visited Primex’s New Jersey plant to discuss Primex purchasing the machine. But that i s too tenuous a connection to constitute an intentional targeting of the New Jersey market by Union. After the machine’s sale and placement in New Jersey, Union increased its
contacts there . It sent representatives to New Jersey to oversee installation. Later, its representatives traveled to New Jersey to train Primex and maint ain the machine. Sometimes those representatives stayed in New Jersey for weeks at a time. And one time after th e installation, Union ’s chief executive officer visited the Primex facility in New5

Jersey. In addition to those physical contacts , after the sale, Union representatives began
to communicate with Primex by email, tele phone, and remote access software. Reg ardless of whether those post

- sale contacts were promised with the machine’s sale or

were efforts to nurture a customer relationship, they amount to deliberate targeting by Union of New Jersey for its business. Thus, after the sale of the calender machine , Union purposeful ly avail ed itself of New Jersey. But even with that post

- sale purposeful availment, there is not a “strong relationship” between “the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Hepp , 14 F.4th at 208 (quoting Ford , 141 S. Ct. at 1 028). The first claim

– for defective design under the New Jersey Products Liability Act, see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:58C

– 2

– lacks such a strong relationship. Although “some relationships will support jurisdiction without a causal showing,” Ford , 141 S. Ct . at 1026, to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction, Union’s actions in New Jersey, which are not alleged to have caused any of the claimed injuries, had to have included more than mere efforts to keep its one customer in New Jersey happy. That is especially so here where those efforts did not involve core characteristics of the products liability claim: the design and manufacture of the machine or any of its parts in New Jersey. Nor did Union advertise or seek other customers in New Jersey, and i t has not opened a permanent office there. Thus, Union’s contacts in relation to this claim and the forum did not suffice for specific jurisdiction. For similar reasons, Union’s contacts with New Jersey also foreclose the exercise of specific jurisdictio n over the Martinezes’ claim concerning the machine’s alleged dangerousness and inadequate warnings, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8

– 2. Finally, the loss

- of

- consortium claim adds nothing to Union’s6

contacts wi th New Jersey, and without personal jurisdiction over Union for the other two claims, this count was correctly dismissed as well. In advocating in favor of New Jersey’s personal jurisdiction over Union , the Martinezes rely heavily on the Supreme Court’s de cision in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court , 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021). In that opinion , the Supreme Court explained that the forum state in each of two consolidated case s could exert personal jurisdiction over an automobile manufacturer , Ford Motor Company, for tort claims prompted by vehicle crash es in each forum even though Ford had not manufactured, designed, or sold either vehicle in either forum

. Id. at 1023

– 24. But the nature of Ford’s contacts with each forum drove t hat outcome

. Ford engaged in “wide ranging

- promotional activities, including television, print, online, and direct

- mail advertisements.” Id. at 1022. Ford shipped the same model vehicles to each forum for sale , and its network of dealers “offer [ed] an a rray of maintenance and repair service s .” Id. at 10 22

– 23 , 1028

. Ford also encouraged a resale market for its products and provide d “original parts to auto supply stores and repair shops across the country.” Id. at 1022

– 23. For these reasons, the Suprem e Court concluded that Ford “systematically served a market” in th e forum states. Id. at 1028. But Union is not Ford. The nature of its contacts with New Jersey pale in comparison to Ford’s contacts with the forum states , and Union cannot be said to systematically serve a market in New Jersey. Thus, under Ford , Union’s post

- sale purposeful availment of New Jersey did not result in a strong relationship between Union, New Jersey, a nd the claims the Martinezes now bring

. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.