Opinion ID: 201973
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timing of Contacts -- General Jurisdiction

Text: We first resolve a preliminary matter. At oral argument, the parties disputed which time frame of evidence was relevant in deciding whether the Hospital's contacts with Maine are sufficient to justify general jurisdiction. Harlow argued that for purposes of general jurisdiction, we should look at the Hospital's contacts up to the time of the filing of the complaint, well beyond the time of the alleged tort. The Hospital relied by analogy on Cambridge Literary Properties for the proposition that, even when general jurisdiction is alleged, contacts should be judged when the cause of action arose. 295 F.3d at 66. We disagree with the Hospital. -27- It is settled law that unrelated contacts which occurred after the cause of action arose, but before the suit was filed, may be considered for purposes of the general jurisdiction inquiry. In Noonan, we expressly rejected the argument now made by the Hospital. See 135 F.3d at 93 n.8 (The parties clash over which contacts should be considered in the general jurisdiction analysis. . . . [T]hey dispute whether a foreign corporation's contacts with the forum should be measured up to the time of the alleged tort, up to the time the complaint is filed, or at any time. We have considered all contacts established up to the time [the plaintiff] filed his complaint.). In Helicopteros, where the helicopter crash at the center of the lawsuit had occurred in January 1976, the Supreme Court considered contacts through the year 1977. See 466 U.S. at 410-11. On the other hand, contacts after the filing of the complaint are not considered. See, e.g., United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd., 274 F.3d 610, 619 n.4 (1st Cir. 2001) ([W]e consider only contacts established before the government filed its complaint in December 1997 . . . .). The reason for this approach stems from the basic distinction between specific and general jurisdiction. Wright and Miller, in discussing this distinction, state: As a practical matter, a general jurisdiction inquiry is very different from a specific jurisdiction inquiry. As one Court of Appeals put it, -28- Unlike the specific jurisdiction analysis, which focuses on the cause of action, the defendant and the forum, a general jurisdiction inquiry is dispute blind, the sole focus being on whether there are continuous and systematic contacts between the defendant and the forum. Accordingly, a court should consider all of a defendant's contacts with the forum state prior to the filing of the lawsuit, rather than just those contacts that are related to the particular cause of action the plaintiff asserts. 4 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1067.5, at 52021 (3d ed. 2002) (footnote omitted) (quoting Dickson Marine, Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir. 1999)); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 569-70 (2d Cir. 1996) (In general jurisdiction cases, district courts should examine a defendant's contacts with the forum state over a period that is reasonable under the circumstances -- up to and including the date the suit was filed -- to assess whether they satisfy the 'continuous and systematic' standard.).