Courts first apply the state long-arm statute, which defines what types of conduct would bring a nonresident defendant within the boundaries of the court's reach. Activities that can create jurisdiction under most long-arm statutes include transacting business, committing a tortious act within the forum, or committing a tortious act outside the forum that has an effect within the forum. Once the court finds that the exercise of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant is consistent with the relevant long-arm statute, the court then must determine whether the due process requirements are satisfied. A court must establish that it has either general or specific jurisdiction over a defendant before it can proceed with an action against the defendant. General jurisdiction is personal jurisdiction exercised over a defendant when the cause of action is unrelated to the defendant's contacts, but the defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum.
Specific jurisdiction arises out of, or is related to, the defendant's contacts with the forum.
To assert specific jurisdiction, a court is required to find that the defendant purposefully directed activities at residents in the forum, the claim arose out of those activities, and the assertion of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. Courts are cautious in exercise of jurisdiction over foreign defendants. Considered critical to due process analysis is whether the foreseeability exhibited by defendant's conduct and its connections with the forum State demonstrate that the defendant would reasonably anticipate being brought into the forum court. With respect to Internet-related cases, the law of personal jurisdiction is in flux. 952 F. Supp.