Opinion ID: 201973
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standards for Specific Jurisdiction

Text: The evidence produced to support specific jurisdiction must show that the cause of action either arises directly out of, or is related to, the defendant's forum-based contacts. Pleasant 7 As the district court noted, Harlow relied on general jurisdiction in the state court proceeding. Harlow's reply to the Hospital's motion to dismiss in the district court does not expressly argue for specific jurisdiction, but it also does not expressly argue for general jurisdiction. Without using either of those terms, the substance of the reply plainly invokes both forms of personal jurisdiction. -18- Street I, 960 F.2d at 1088-89. The relatedness requirement is not an open door; it is closely read, and it requires a showing of a material connection. This court steadfastly reject[s] the exercise of personal jurisdiction whenever the connection between the cause of action and the defendant's forum-state contacts seems attenuated and indirect. Id. at 1089 (citing Donatelli, 893 F.2d at 463). Instead, the defendant's in-state conduct must form an 'important, or [at least] material, element of proof' in the plaintiff's case. Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Marino v. Hyatt Corp., 793 F.2d 427, 430 (1st Cir. 1986)). A broad but-for argument is generally insufficient. Because 'but for' events can be very remote, . . . due process demands something like a 'proximate cause' nexus. Cambridge Literary Props., 295 F.3d at 65. And although strict adherence to a proximate cause standard in all circumstances is unnecessarily restrictive, in most cases the proximate cause standard better comports with the relatedness inquiry because it so easily correlates to foreseeability, a significant component of the jurisdictional inquiry. Nowak v. Tak How Invs., Ltd., 94 F.3d 708, 715 (1st Cir. 1996). A 'but for' requirement . . . has in itself no limiting principle; it literally embraces every event that hindsight can logically identify in the causative chain. Id. In sum, although proximate causation is not a per se requirement of specific jurisdiction, its presence or absence is still important. Id. at 715-16. -19-