Opinion ID: 2404850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fairness and Reasonableness

Text: We now evaluate the final factor, whether it is fair to subject North Atlantic to suit here. We look to the five gestalt factors, which consider: (1) the burden on the defendant; (2) the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute; (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief; (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Vt. Wholesale, 154 N.H. at 629, 914 A.2d 818. The gestalt factors sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required. Id.
Because suit in a foreign jurisdiction always burdens a foreign company, the defendant must establish that the Court's exercise of jurisdiction would be onerous in a special, unusual, or other constitutionally significant way. Bartow v. Extec Screens and Crushers, Ltd., 53 F.Supp.2d 518, 528 (D.Mass.1999) (quotations omitted); see Pritzker, 42 F.3d at 64. Although the United States Supreme Court has warned that the burden of mounting a defense in a foreign legal system is unique and should be afforded significant weight in assessing the reasonableness of stretching the long arm of personal jurisdiction over national borders, Asahi, 480 U.S. at 114, 107 S.Ct. 1026, we think that a Canadian defendant such as [North Atlantic] bears a substantially lighter burden than do[ ] . . . most other foreign defendants. Aristech Chm. Intern. v. Acrylic Fabricators, 138 F.3d 624, 628-29 (6th Cir.1998) (citing cases). In recent years, United States courts have similarly concluded and have routinely require[d] Canadian companies to defend here. Parrish, Trail Smelter Déjà Vu: Extraterritoriality, International Environmental Law, and the Search for Solutions to Canadian-U.S. Transboundary Water Pollution Disputes, 85 B.U. L.Rev. 363, 390-91 (2005). Companies, like North Atlantic, that do business close to the border and to the court where the case is pending, have the lightest burden. Id. at 391; see Aristech, 138 F.3d at 628-29; Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623, 631-32 (11th Cir.1996); Glinka v. Abraham and Rose Co. Ltd., 199 B.R. 484, 497 (D.Vt. 1996) (The burden in this case on the defendant to defend in [Vermont] . . . is slight; its offices in Montreal are not particularly distant.), aff'd on other grounds by In re Housecraft Industries USA Inc., 310 F.3d 64 (2d Cir.2002); Ensign-Bickford Co. v. ICI Explosives USA Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1018, 1031 (D.Conn.1993) (emphasizing the relatively short distance from the defendant's principal place of business in Ontario, Canada, to the site of this litigation in Connecticut). In addition, a Canadian defendant litigating in the United States finds a judicial system rooted in the same common law traditions as that of Canada. Theunissen v. Matthews, 935 F.2d 1454, 1462 (6th Cir.1991); see Ensign-Bickford, 817 F.Supp. at 1031 ([T]he unfairness of forcing a foreign party to litigate in an unfamiliar legal system is alleviated here by the fact that the Canadian legal system is similar in many respects to the legal system in the United States.). In sum, then, the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not impose a heavy burden upon North Atlantic.
The State of New Hampshire has a legitimate interest in adjudicating this suit because it involves the claimed contamination and pollution of State waters. Cf. Benitez-Allende v. Alcan Aluminio do Brasil, S.A., 857 F.2d 26, 31 (1st Cir.1988) (forum's interest in protecting its citizens from defective products weighs heavily in favor of jurisdiction), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1018, 109 S.Ct. 1135, 103 L.Ed.2d 196 (1989). North Atlantic acknowledges that the State of New Hampshire has an interest in adjudicating this dispute, particularly given that the State is the plaintiff. For similar reasons, we accord deference to the State's choice of filing suit in New Hampshire. See Bartow, 53 F.Supp.2d at 528.