12 Cited authorities

Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court
480 U.S. 102 (1987) Cited 4,871 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable
Calder v. Jones
465 U.S. 783 (1984) Cited 4,614 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,579 times 109 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
Marten v. Godwin
499 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 923 times
Holding that court lacked special jurisdiction over the University of Kansas based on its expulsion of a Pennsylvania resident from its internet-based education program, allegedly in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise of his freedom of expression under the First Amendment
IMO Industries, Inc. v. Kiekert AG
155 F.3d 254 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 1,030 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that minimum contacts do not exist in an intentional tort case unless the defendant " expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum"; the mere fact that the harm caused by the defendant was primarily felt in the forum because the plaintiff resided there is not enough
Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, National Ass'n v. Farino
960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992) Cited 1,123 times
Holding that plaintiff's right to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained when factual allegations suggest the possible existence of requisite contacts between the defendant and the forum state with "reasonable particularity"
Remick v. Manfredy
238 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 721 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding distribution of defamatory letter to "the boxing community" did not support personal jurisdiction where forum state lacked "unique relationship with the boxing industry, as distinguished from the relationship in Calder between California and the motion picture industry"
Vetrotex Certainteed v. Consolidated Fiber
75 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 1996) Cited 487 times
Holding that "whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over an out-of-state defendant is a question of law, and this court's review is therefore plenary."
Lomanno v. Black
285 F. Supp. 2d 637 (E.D. Pa. 2003) Cited 122 times
Holding that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where no party asserted that the allegedly defamatory statements were published in Pennsylvania
Silver v. Mendel
894 F.2d 598 (3d Cir. 1990) Cited 91 times
Holding that a malicious filing of an involuntary petition for bankruptcy is not protected by the judicial privilege
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 27,800 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Marcellx, Llc et al v. Sbarra

12 Cited authorities

Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

Holding a California court had personal jurisdiction over individual defendants when the defendants had not visited the state in connection with an allegedly defamatory article and "[we]re not responsible for the circulation of the article in California"

Holding that court lacked special jurisdiction over the University of Kansas based on its expulsion of a Pennsylvania resident from its internet-based education program, allegedly in retaliation for plaintiff's exercise of his freedom of expression under the First Amendment

Holding that minimum contacts do not exist in an intentional tort case unless the defendant " expressly aimed its tortious conduct at the forum"; the mere fact that the harm caused by the defendant was primarily felt in the forum because the plaintiff resided there is not enough

Holding that plaintiff's right to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained when factual allegations suggest the possible existence of requisite contacts between the defendant and the forum state with "reasonable particularity"

Holding distribution of defamatory letter to "the boxing community" did not support personal jurisdiction where forum state lacked "unique relationship with the boxing industry, as distinguished from the relationship in Calder between California and the motion picture industry"

Holding that "whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over an out-of-state defendant is a question of law, and this court's review is therefore plenary."

Holding that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where no party asserted that the allegedly defamatory statements were published in Pennsylvania

Holding that a malicious filing of an involuntary petition for bankruptcy is not protected by the judicial privilege

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred