Opinion ID: 201973
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Timing of Contacts -- Specific Jurisdiction

Text: There is a preliminary question regarding the universe of facts pertinent to the specific jurisdiction analysis. Three key themes of specific jurisdiction analysis require that the proper focus be on those contacts leading up to and surrounding the claimed injury which are related to the alleged malpractice. Those three concepts are that there be fair notice to the defendant, that the defendant must have purposefully availed itself of the forum state, and that the forum-based activity be truly related to the cause of action. The bulk of Harlow's post-tort evidence of the Hospital's activity in Maine is simply not related at all to the alleged malpractice. As to the time frame for evidence, we have rejected an argument from a defendant that specific jurisdiction should be measured by contacts after the alleged wrongdoing, where those contacts were more limited than those at the time of the event. See Cambridge Literary Props., 295 F.3d at 66 ([F]or purposes of specific jurisdiction, contacts should be judged when the cause of action arose, regardless of a later lessening or withdrawal.). A defendant cannot avoid jurisdiction by shrinking its contacts with the forum after the tort. This case presents the mirror-image question. The district court understood Harlow, the plaintiff, to be asking that specific jurisdiction be measured in part by contacts after the -20- cause of action arose, when those later contacts with the forum state increased. This presents a slightly different set of problems -- particularly as to fair notice to the defendant, purposeful availment, and relatedness. These three concepts are all related, and they mean that in analyzing specific jurisdiction, contacts must generally be limited to those before and surrounding the accrual of the cause of action. This court has noted, for instance, that 'foreseeability' and 'purposeful availment' bear a family resemblance (the former defining the latter to a considerable extent), Donatelli, 893 F.2d at 464, and that foreseeability is critical in analyzing the relatedness requirement, Pleasant Street I, 960 F.2d at 1089. At heart, these concepts are all designed to ensure that exercises of jurisdiction comport with due process. The Due Process Clause requires fair warning as to where individuals' conduct will subject them to suit, and for purposes of specific jurisdiction, this 'fair warning' requirement is satisfied if the defendant has 'purposefully directed' his activities at residents of the forum, and the litigation results from alleged injuries that 'arise out of or relate to' those activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985) (citations omitted); see also Pleasant Street I, 960 F.2d at 1088 (citing Hanson's purposeful availment requirement); id. (citing concepts of reasonableness and foreseeability and requirement that a defendant's 'conduct and -21- connection with the forum State [be] such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there' (alteration in original) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980))). The relatedness requirement, in particular, ensures that the element of causation remains in the forefront of the due process investigation. Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 207 (1st Cir. 1994). Because causation is central to the relatedness inquiry, see, e.g., Nowak, 94 F.3d at 714-16; Pleasant Street I, 960 F.2d at 1089, in most cases, contacts coming into existence after the cause of action arose will not be relevant.