Opinion ID: 2645047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Three-Part Due Process Test

Text: In specific personal jurisdiction cases, we apply the three-part due process test, which examines: (1) whether the plaintiff’s claims “arise out of or relate to” at least one of the defendant’s contacts with the forum; (2) whether the nonresident defendant “purposefully availed” himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefit of the forum state’s laws; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472–73, 474–75, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2182–83 (1985); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 413–14, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 1872 (1984); Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158 (1945); see 31 Case: 12-12501 Date Filed: 12/02/2013 Page: 32 of 39 also Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1220–21; Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd., 94 F.3d 623, 630–31 (11th Cir. 1996). 10 The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the first two prongs, and if the plaintiff does so, “a defendant must make a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction would violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010).