Opinion ID: 2404850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relatedness of Contacts to Claims

Text: We begin by examining the first factor, whether North Atlantic's contacts relate to the State's cause of action. This factor involves whether the claim underlying the litigation directly arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-state activities. Astro-Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden America, Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2009). The relatedness test is a flexible, relaxed standard. Id. (quotations omitted). To satisfy the relatedness factor, [t]here must be more than just an attenuated connection between the contacts and the claim; the defendant's in-state conduct must form an important, or at least material, element of proof in the plaintiff's case. Phillips, 530 F.3d at 27 (quotation and brackets omitted). The court's assessment of relatedness is informed by the concept of foreseeability. Unicomp, Inc. v. Harcros Pigments, Inc., 994 F.Supp. 24, 25 (D.Me.1998). In Unicomp, for instance, the court determined that the alleged injury from the sale of a product in the forum state by the manufacturer through its chosen distributor was sufficiently foreseeable to satisfy the relatedness prong of the jurisdictional inquiry. Id. at 25-26. In this case, the State has asserted five causes of action: strict product liability based upon defective design, strict product liability based upon failure to warn, trespass, negligence and violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, see RSA ch. 358-A. A sixth cause of action, public nuisance, was previously dismissed. All of these claims stem, at least in part, from the State's assertion that refineries, such as North Atlantic's, supplied MTBE gasoline, either directly or indirectly, to New Hampshire consumers, and, as a result, MTBE escaped into and contaminated New Hampshire waters. While North Atlantic argues that it had no contacts with New Hampshire, see Swiss American Bank, 274 F.3d at 621 (noting that there can be no requisite nexus between the [defendant's] contacts and the [plaintiff's] cause of action if no contacts exist), the State has submitted properly documented proffers that, if credited, demonstrate that such contacts exist. North Atlantic's contacts with New Hampshire include producing and designing reformulated gas containing MTBE for the northeastern United States market (which, necessarily, includes New Hampshire), as well as the presence of thirty-seven shipments of such gas at a New Hampshire location. We conclude that, based upon these properly documented proffers, which we must credit, the State's causes of action arise from or relate to the shipments of MTBE gasoline produced at North Atlantic's refinery and supplied to a New Hampshire location. North Atlantic's contacts, therefore, relate to the State's claims. See McNair v. McNair, 151 N.H. 343, 350, 856 A.2d 5 (2004) (when the alleged minimum contacts are the same acts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action is based, the minimum contacts relate to the cause of action). The alleged injury from the shipment of MTBE gas to a New Hampshire location by North Atlantic's exclusive customer, its sister company, Vitol Refining, was sufficiently foreseeable to satisfy the relatedness prong of the jurisdictional inquiry. Unicomp, 994 F.Supp. at 26. Relying upon an earlier trial court order regarding another defendant, North Atlantic argues that the law of the case requires a different result. North Atlantic's reliance upon this doctrine is misplaced. Under the law of the case doctrine, when an appellate court states a rule of law, it is conclusively established and determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent appeal or retrial of the same case. Merrimack Valley Wood Prods. v. Near, 152 N.H. 192, 201, 876 A.2d 757 (2005). The question decided in the first appeal is known as the law of the case, and becomes binding precedent to be followed in successive stages of the same litigation. Id. As we have not previously stated any rule of law regarding whether New Hampshire has personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants in this case, including North Atlantic, the law of the case doctrine does not apply. See id. at 202, 876 A.2d 757.