Opinion ID: 2167420
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Nexus between Appellant's Claims and Appellee's Minimum Contacts with the District of Columbia

Text: Even if there were any basis to conclude that IDESA transacted business in the District of Columbia within the meaning of section 13-423(a)(1) so that it could reasonably foresee being haled into court here, appellant would still be unable to show a substantial connection between IDESA's contacts with the forum and her claim for relief. The defendant corporation in Shoppers deliberately solicited District residents to shop in its Maryland and Virginia stores. The plaintiff in that case fell and was injured in one of those stores (in Maryland) and later filed suit against Shoppers to recover damages for her injuries. Given those facts, we held that there can be no doubt that [Shoppers'] advertising relates to or has a discernible relationship to a claim by a District resident who becomes a customer in one of Shoppers' stores and is injured. 746 A.2d at 335-336. By contrast, IDESA's alleged contacts with the District of Columbia are limited to the occasional sale of parts to Amtech several years ago for use in projects in buildings in the District of Columbia. Appellant's claim, however, is based on an alleged tort that occurred in Mexico City, Mexico. An elevator accident occurring in Mexico, allegedly caused by a Mexican company, simply cannot be said to have any relation to that company's sale of products for potential use in the District of Columbia. We find no basis in law or logic for concluding that appellant's claim arose from IDESA's contacts with the forum.