Opinion ID: 4425534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 3d 44, 90 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). 25

Text: test. Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 883 F.3d 68, 86 (2d Cir. 2018); Garcia v. Peterson, 319 F. Supp. 3d 863, 888 (S.D. Tex. 2018); My Size, Inc. v. Mizrahi, 193 F. Supp. 3d 327, 333 (D. Del. 2016); BeoCare Grp., Inc. v. Morrissey, 124 F. Supp. 3d 696, 702 (W.D.N.C. 2015). 25 Defendants assert that it is not enough that a defendant has knowledge of her co-conspirator’s acts in the forum state. They rely on Walden’s reasoning that a defendant’s knowledge of a plaintiff’s “strong forum connections” and foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff in the forum state cannot satisfy the minimum contacts requirement of due process. 571 U.S. at 289 (citation omitted). The Court concluded that such reasoning “improperly attributes a plaintiff’s forum connections to the defendant and makes those connections ‘decisive’ in the jurisdictional analysis.” Id. Defendants conflate a defendant’s knowledge of her co-conspirator with a defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff, however. A defendant has taken an action to become part of a conspiracy, which makes a defendant’s knowledge of her co-conspirator’s actions in the forum (continued . . .) . 30 Cite as: 2019 UT 44 Opinion of the Court ¶ 84 Although both articulations seem to drive to the same conclusions, we prefer a test that focuses on the bedrock principle that for jurisdiction to comport with due process, an individual defendant’s contacts must be “such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Although in the context of a conspiracy this will frequently boil down to what a defendant knew or should have known her co-conspirators were doing in the forum, there may well be cases in which the state of a defendant’s knowledge may not perfectly align with her ability to reasonably anticipate being haled into court in a particular state.26 ¶ 85 We therefore adopt a conspiracy theory of jurisdiction that focuses on whether the defendant could have reasonably anticipated being subject to jurisdiction in the forum state because of her participation in the conspiracy. To assert specific personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must plead with particularity that (1) the defendant is a member of a conspiracy, (2) the acts of the defendant’s co-conspirators create minimum contacts with the forum, and (3) the defendant could have reasonably anticipated that her co-conspirator’s actions would connect the conspiracy to the forum state in a meaningful way, such that she could expect to defend herself in that forum. ¶ 86 Echoing concerns that have been expressed by other courts, we adopt this test “‘warily’ in order ‘to prevent a broad extension of state relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry, while the defendant’s knowledge of the plaintiff’s actions in the forum state is not. 26 This, of course, suggests the question of what are the contacts that would cause a person to reasonably anticipate being haled into court. We emphasize that there is no special or different test for minimum contacts in this setting. As Walden instructs, “[W]e have upheld the assertion of jurisdiction over defendants who have purposefully ‘reach[ed] out beyond’ their State and into another by, for example, entering a contractual relationship that ‘envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts’ in the forum State, or by circulating magazines to ‘deliberately exploi[t]’ a market in the forum State.” 571 U.S. at 285 (second and fourth alterations in original) (citations omitted). “And although physical presence in the forum is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction, physical entry into the State—either by the defendant in person or through an agent, goods, mail, or some other means—is certainly a relevant contact.” Id. 31 RASER v. MORGAN STANLEY Opinion of the Court long-arm jurisdiction.;” EIG Energy Fund, 246 F. Supp. 3d at 90 (citation omitted). To curb the unintended and improper expansion of long-arm jurisdiction, courts applying this test will need to carefully assess the relationship between each individual defendant and the conspiracy to assess whether that individual defendant’s relationship with the conspiracy and forum is such that she could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in the state. And a district court will need to assure itself that the exercise of jurisdiction over a co-conspirator is constitutional by examining the role the coconspirator played in the conspiracy and the contacts between the conspirators and the forum state. ¶ 87 We also stress that plaintiffs must plead with specificity each element of the conspiracy theory of jurisdiction. See Pohl, 2008 UT 89. “[A] bare allegation of a conspiracy between the defendant and a person within the personal jurisdiction of the court is not enough to establish jurisdiction.” Id. ¶ 30 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of clearly alleging facts that demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy.” Id. “[T]he complaint must set forth reasonably definite factual allegations, either direct or inferential, regarding each material element needed to show a civil conspiracy.” Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 27 On remand, Plaintiffs will need to demonstrate that their pleadings conform to this standard.