Opinion ID: 602
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Background on Personal Jurisdiction

Text: Where, as here, the district court held no evidentiary hearing but instead conducted only a prima facie review of the jurisdictional facts, we review de novo the district court's decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Harlow, 432 F.3d at 57 (quotation marks and citation omitted). In reviewing a decision made under the prima facie standard, we consider the plaintiff's allegations so far as evidence supports them after preliminary jurisdictional discovery. Jet Wine & Spirits, Inc. v. Bacardi & Co., 298 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2002); see United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 619 (1st Cir. 2001) (holding that the prima facie showing must be based upon evidence of specific facts set forth in the record) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, [w]e then add to the mix facts put forward by the defendants, to the extent that they are uncontradicted. Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir.1998). The plaintiff ultimately bears the burden of persuading the court that jurisdiction exists. Id.
Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. Harlow, 432 F.3d at 57. Specific jurisdiction may only be relied upon where the cause of action arises directly out of, or relates to, the defendant's forum-based contacts. Pritzker v. Yari, 42 F.3d 53, 60 (1st Cir.1994) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co., 744 F.2d 213, 215 (1st Cir.1984) (stating that specific jurisdiction is based on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation). General jurisdiction, by contrast, may be asserted in connection with suits not directly founded on [that defendant's] forum-based conduct.... Pritzker, 42 F.3d at 59 (quotation marks and citation omitted). General jurisdiction broadly subjects the defendant to suit in the forum state's courts in respect to all matters, even those that are unrelated to the defendant's contacts with the forum. Phillips Exeter Acad. v. Howard Phillips Fund, Inc., 196 F.3d 284, 288 (1st Cir.1999). On appeal, Cossaboon has abandoned her claim of specific jurisdiction and contends only that MMC is subject to general jurisdiction. Constitutional limitations on the exercise of personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants are rooted in principles of fundamental fairness. Id. at 288. The due process clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful `contacts, ties, or relations.' Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). As such, a court is precluded from asserting jurisdiction unless the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that [it] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Based on the precedents of the Supreme Court, we have read the due process clause to impose three requirements on the exercise of general jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. Harlow, 432 F.3d at 57. To justify the exercise of general jurisdiction, (1) the defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state, (2) those contacts must be purposeful, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable under the circumstances. Id. In order to satisfy the first requirement, the defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although a showing of minimum contacts is sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction, the standard for establishing general jurisdiction is considerably more stringent. Glater, 744 F.2d at 216. To permit the exercise of general jurisdiction, the defendant must engage[] in the `continuous and systematic' pursuit of general business activities in the forum state. Id. (quoting Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 448, 72, S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952)); see 4A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1067.5 (3d ed. 2002) ([T]he defendant must be engaged in longstanding business in the forum state, such as marketing or shipping products, or performing services or maintaining one or more offices there; activities that are less extensive than that will not qualify for general in personam jurisdiction.) Under the second requirement, the defendant's contacts with the state must be purposeful. Harlow, 432 F.3d at 57. That is, there must 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 protections of its laws. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). The purposeful availment test focuses on the defendant's intentionality, Swiss Am. Bank, 274 F.3d at 623, and is only satisfied when the defendant purposefully and voluntarily directs his activities toward the forum so that he should expect, by virtue of the benefit he receives, to be subject to the court's jurisdiction based on these contacts. Id. at 624. This requirement ensures that a defendant will not be subjected to personal jurisdiction on the basis of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Our analysis of whether a defendant's contacts with the forum state satisfy these first two requirements is not simply mechanical or quantitative, but instead depends upon the quality and nature of the defendant's activity in the forum state. Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154. The inquiry is highly idiosyncratic, involving an individualized assessment and factual analysis of the precise mix of contacts that characterize each case. Pritzker, 42 F.3d at 60. Although our inquiry is fact-specific, it is guided by the types of contacts deemed sufficiently continuous and systematic in other cases. Noonan v. Winston Co., 135 F.3d 85, 93 (1st Cir.1998). Under the third and final requirement, the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable under the circumstances. [3] Harlow, 432 F.3d at 57. The reasonableness inquiry is secondary rather than primary; unless the defendant has some cognizable contacts with the proposed forum, the court cannot assert general jurisdiction. Sandstrom v. Chem-Lawn Corp., 904 F.2d 83, 89 (1st Cir.1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted).