Filed June 13, 2017
Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1123 (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475). Separately, even if RISD’s alleged contact did reach the lowest “minimum contacts” threshold, the Court has the discretion to decline jurisdiction if doing so “would comport with Case 2:17-cv-01659-CDJ Document 8-1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 11 of 17 7 ‘fair play and substantial justice.’” Mellon Bank, 960 F.2d at 1222 (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476 (1985)). In Mellon, the Third Circuit explained that factors a court should consider as part of this analysis include: “the burden on the defendant, the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.”
Filed June 28, 2011
To show specific jurisdiction, this Court uses a three pronged test: 1) The defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state; 2) The claim asserted against the defendant arises out of those contacts; and 3) The exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1221. Furthermore, this Circuit has explicitly provided that because the specific jurisdiction analysis “depends on the relationship between the claims and contacts, [courts] generally evaluate specific jurisdiction on a claim-by-claim basis.”
Filed April 24, 2017
According to Plaintiff, Mellon Bank PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992) establishes that he “need only make a prima facie demonstration of jurisdiction by establishing the presence of contacts between ABOS and New Jersey” (Opposition p. 11). In fact, Mellon Bank requires that Plaintiff present a prima facie case by “establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state.” 960 F.2d at 1223. The supposed contacts that Plaintiff has alleged are completely lacking in the required particularity.
Filed November 2, 2016
To survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must make “a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists.” Oakley, Inc. v. Jofa AB, 287 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1114 (C.D. Cal. 2003); see also Mellon Bank, 960 F.2d at 1223. This “prima facie showing must be based on affirmative proof beyond the pleadings, such as affidavits, testimony or other competent evidence of specific facts.”
Filed December 11, 2015
2 The Pennsylvania long-arm statute, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5322, allows personal jurisdiction to the maximum limits of the Constitution. See Mellon Bank, 960 F.2d at 1221. Thus, in evaluating whether it has jurisdiction over Defendant, the Court need only determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction violates due process.
Filed July 6, 2009
To avoid jurisdiction, Laiki must present a compelling case that the presence of some other consideration would render jurisdiction unreasonable. Mellon Bank, 960 F.2d at 1226. As Laiki makes cites no factors that would otherwise make jurisdiction unreasonable and unconstitutional, this Court need go no further.
Filed January 29, 2019
12 RMLC cites four cases in support of the notion that the Court may consider post-complaint contacts, but each of those cases predates Rocke, and one of them does not even stand for the proposition RMLC cites it for. See Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1224 (3d Cir. 1992) (refusing to limit analysis to conduct occurring prior to the start of the parties’ contractual relationship, which formed basis for the suit). And as GMR explained in a previous brief, in each of RMLC’s remaining cases the defendants expanded their business operations in the forum state subsequent to the commencement of litigation, thereby belying any purported lack of contact with the forum.
Filed May 22, 2017
Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing personal jurisdiction is proper by presenting “a prima facie case for the exercise of personal jurisdiction by establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state.” Mellon Bank (East) PSFS, Nat. Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992).
Filed April 14, 2017
Thus, the sole inquiry into jurisdiction over a non- resident is the analysis of the constitutional due process requirements. See Mellon Bank (E.) PSFS, Nat. Ass’n v. Farino., 960 F.2d 1217, 1221 (3d Cir. 1993). Case 2:17-cv-00555-MSG Document 45 Filed 04/14/17 Page 5 of 10 3 A. There is no general jurisdiction over Sun. UHS fails to satisfy the standards for general jurisdiction set by both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court.
Filed February 21, 2017
In response to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must present “‘a prima facie case for the exercise of personal jurisdiction by establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state.’” Wallace v. Keystone Printed Specialties Co., Inc., No. 14-5978, 2016 WL 5403088, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2016) (quoting Mellon Bank (E.) PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992)). A federal court sitting in diversity engages in a two-step inquiry to determine whether it may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.