Opinion ID: 3172729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo the district court's decision to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Phillips v. Prairie Eye Ctr., 530 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 2008). A Corp. bears the burden to establish that specific jurisdiction exists over All American. Id. Below, the district court employed the prima facie method to determine whether A Corp. had met its burden.5 Under this standard, the inquiry is whether [A Corp.] has proffered evidence which, if credited, is sufficient to support findings of all facts essential to personal jurisdiction. Id. at 26. It is not enough for A Corp. to rely on unsupported allegations in [its] pleadings. Platten v. HG Bermuda Exempted Ltd., 437 F.3d 118, 134 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting Boit v. Gar–Tec Prods., Inc., 967 F.2d 671, 675 (1st Cir. 1992)). Rather, A Corp. must put forward evidence of specific facts to 5The other two methods are the preponderance method and the likelihood method. Phillips, 530 F.3d at 26, n.2. Unlike the prima facie method, the preponderance and likelihood methods generally require an evidentiary hearing. Id. [T]he least taxing of these standards from a plaintiff's standpoint, and the one most commonly employed in the early stages of litigation, is the prima facie standard. Rodriguez v. Fullerton Tires Corp., 115 F.3d 81, 83-84 (1st Cir. 1997). - 5 - demonstrate that jurisdiction exists. Id. (quoting Foster–Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Can., 46 F.3d 138, 145 (1st Cir.1995)). Reviewing a decision made under the prima facie standard, we must accept A Corp.'s properly documented evidentiary proffers as true and construe them in the light most favorable to A Corp.'s jurisdictional claim. Phillips, 530 F.3d at 26 (citing Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42, 51 (1st Cir. 2002)). But we will also consider facts offered by All American, to the extent that they are not disputed. Daynard, 290 F.3d at 51.