Opinion ID: 610230
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 5 Fisher contends the district court erred by dismissing her action under Rule 12(b)(2) because the district court had specific jurisdiction over Fargo. This contention lacks merit. 6 Federal due process requires that a nonresident defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts. Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1420 (9th Cir.1987). 7 A federal court sitting in Arizona in a diversity proceeding applies Arizona's long-arm statute to determine whether it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Ariz.R.Civ.P. 4(e)(2). Arizona's long-arm statute grants Arizona courts jurisdiction coextensive with the limits of federal due process. Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 736 P.2d 2, 4 (Ariz.Ct.App.1987). Where a defendant's activities within the forum state are not so systematic or pervasive as to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction, a court may assert specific jurisdiction, depending on the nature and quality of the defendant's contact with the forum state. Lake, 817 F.2d at 1421. 8 We traditionally have applied a three-part analysis to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists: (1) the defendant purposefully directs activity at the forum state or performs some act by which it has availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum state, thus invoking the benefits or protections of the forum state's laws; (2) the claim arises out of or relates to defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice. Brainerd, 873 F.2d at 1259. 9 We agree with the district court that Fargo lacked the necessary minimum contacts with Arizona. Fisher's claim does not arise out of forum-related activities. Rather, her claim arose out of Fargo's alleged negligent conduct in California. Fargo's only alleged contacts with Arizona occurred after Fisher's accident, when Fargo's agents conducted negotiations, engaged in investigation and tendered money to Fisher within Arizona. Fargo's post-accident contacts with Fisher were required because Fisher returned to Arizona after the accident. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) (jurisdiction may not be based on random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts). Fargo has not consummated a transaction with Arizona and has not acted in a manner as to avail itself purposefully of the privilege of conducting activities in Arizona. See Brainerd, 873 F.2d at 1259. Thus, the district court properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.