Opinion ID: 2443365
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2)

Text: Appellee's admission that he does occasional business projects in the District does not justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction under subsections (a)(1) or (a)(2) of the District's long-arm statute because subsection (b) of the statute requires that appellant's claim for relief aris[e] from these jurisdictional activities. See Shoppers Food Warehouse v. Moreno, 746 A.2d 320, 335 (D.C.2000) ([F]or the Superior Court to have jurisdiction over [a plaintiff's] claim, the claim ha[s] to be related to or substantially connected with [the defendant's] activity in the District.). Appellant does not allege that his claims arise from or are related to appellee's business activities in the District. Nor has appellant contested appellee's assertion that his business activities in the District have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with [appellant]. Therefore, the facts of record do not justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over appellee under either subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) of the District's long-arm statute.