Opinion ID: 2186310
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendants er & e and rutgers

Text: In order to withstand a defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss a complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction. Ben's Marine Sales v. Sleek Craft Boats, 502 A.2d 808, 809 (R.I. 1985); Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). A prima facie case of jurisdiction is established when the requirements of Rhode Island's long-arm statute are satisfied. General Laws 1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 9-5-33 provides in part that [e]very foreign corporation, every individual not a resident of this state    that shall have the necessary minimum contacts with the State of Rhode Island, shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the state of Rhode Island    in every case not contrary to the provisions of the constitution or laws of the United States. The language of this statute permits Rhode Island courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants up to the limits of the Constitution. Conn v. ITT Aetna Finance Co., 105 R.I. 397, 402, 252 A.2d 184, 186 (1969). Constitutional due process requires that a nonresident defendant have certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95, 102 (1945). The minimum-contacts requirement protects defendants from the burden of having to litigate in an inconvenient forum and it ensures that states do not reach out beyond [their] limits    as coequal sovereigns in a federal system. World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S.Ct. 559, 564, 62 L.Ed.2d 490, 498 (1980). Obviously, a determination as to the minimum contacts that will satisfy the requirements of due process will depend upon the facts of each particular case. Ben's Marine Sales, 502 A.2d at 810. The fundamental question here is, thus, whether `the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.' Violet v. Picillo, 613 F. Supp. 1563, 1574 (D.R.I. 1985). The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, 1298 (1958). [I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Id.; see Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of California, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 1033, 94 L.Ed.2d 92, 102 (1987) (due process requires action of defendant purposefully directed toward forum state). In determining whether minimum contacts exist, the court focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2580, 53 L.Ed.2d 683, 698 (1977). Additional factors which the court will consider in determining whether jurisdiction exists include `the forum State's interest in adjudicating the dispute   ; the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief   ; the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies; and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies   .' Violet, 613 F. Supp. at 1574-75. These considerations sometimes serve to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 543-44 (1985). The trial justice in the case at bar dismissed the complaint against ER & E and Rutgers due to lack of in personam jurisdiction solely on the basis of the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits filed. Although the trial justice considered defendants' contacts with Rhode Island in reaching his decision, we believe that the magnitude of the financial consequences of this case and the ramifications of this decision on future litigation in this area necessitate a more comprehensive examination of ER & E and Rutgers contacts with the state in light of the factors previously mentioned. For these reasons this matter is remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.