Opinion ID: 1608642
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Specific versus General Jurisdiction

Text: In interpreting the due process clause, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a distinction between two types of personal jurisdiction, namely general and specific jurisdiction. de Reyes v. Marine Management and Consulting, Ltd., 586 So.2d 103 (La.1991). Specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is appropriate when that defendant has purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum state and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 473, 105 S.Ct. at 2182 n. 15. General jurisdiction, on the other hand, will attach where the nonresident defendant's contacts with the forum state, although not related to the plaintiffs cause of action, are continuous and systematic. Id. We agree with the court of appeal's classification of this case as one dealing with the issue of specific, not general, jurisdiction. The record before us fails to establish that the nonresident defendants had continuous and systematic contacts with the state of Louisiana, which would make general jurisdiction appropriate. However, we reiterate that the classification of general versus specific jurisdiction merely serves as an analytical tool to categorize the degree of interrelation between the defendant's activities, the forum, and the cause of action; the same two-part due process evaluation must be conducted considering the facts in each individual case. de Reyes, 586 So.2d at 109.