Opinion ID: 608628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable.

Text: 18 Brand, 796 F.2d at 1073; see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-78 (1985); Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). 19 The purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or the unilateral activity of another party. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475. The Supreme Court has noted that when a defendant has deliberately engaged in significant activities within a state or has created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum state, jurisdiction may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum state. Id. at 476. The Supreme Court has recognized that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines, thus obviat[ing] the need for physical presence within a State in which business is conducted. Id; see also Bourassa v. Desrochers, 938 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir.1991) (a single phone call to California was a sufficient act or transaction to give California district court jurisdiction). 20 Hartstein purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Washington. The record indicates: (1) Hartstein had over 300 telephone conversations with George Moore, a resident of Washington, instructing Moore how to set up the factoring arrangement, see Transcript of Proceedings on August 19, 1991 (Transcript) at 53, 55-57 (Mark Hartstein called me on the phone, and told me how to set up the merchant accounts), and at 60, 87 (I have talked to him [Hartstein] over 300 times); (2) Hartstein faxed credit card numbers and authorization numbers to Moore in Washington for factoring, see Transcript at 57-59 (Moore, in response to being asked, can you identify those as the actual fax sheets that you received from Mr. Hartstein in this matter?, answered, [t]hese are the actual sheets, some of them.); 1 and (3) Hartstein instructed Moore to wire the funds from Washington to an out of state location, see Transcript at 55-56, 64-65 (He [Hartstein] gave me [Moore] the name of this bank in Tampa, and the account, a number to which the funds were to be sent.). 21 Rainier's federal and state claims resulted from Hartstein's forum-related activities. Hartstein's phone calls, faxes, and instructions to Washington residents to carry out his plans resulted in the illegal processing of credit card charges through the Lady's Legs merchant account at Rainier. 22 Because Hartstein purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Washington, Hartstein has the burden of presenting a compelling case that other considerations exist to render Washington's exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable. See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477. We examine seven factors to determine whether exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable: existence of an alternative forum; burden on the defendant; convenience and effectiveness of relief for the plaintiff; most efficient judicial resolution of the dispute; conflict with sovereignty of the defendant's state; extent of purposeful interjection; and the forum state's interest in the suit. Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F.2d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir.1985). 23 Hartstein has not met his burden of presenting a compelling case that Washington's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him violated due process. While Rainier could have filed its action in Florida, and Hartstein may have more easily defended the suit there, Washington was clearly more convenient for Rainier. Washington was the location of key witnesses, the location where much of the alleged tortious activity occurred, and the location where Rainier was injured. The site where the events in question took place or where most of the evidence is located usually will be the most efficient forum. Brand, 796 F.2d at 1075. Furthermore, Hartstein has not indicated Washington's jurisdiction would conflict with Florida's sovereignty, although such concerns can often be accounted for by choice of law rules. Finally, Washington has a strong interest in the suit because Washington companies were allegedly harmed by Hartstein.