465 U.S. 770 (1984)
Kathy Keeton, a resident of New York who assists in producing a magazine bearing her name in several places crediting her with editorial and other work, sued Hustler Magazine, Inc., an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California, in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.1
She alleged jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship and claimed to have been libeled in five separate issues of the magazine published between September 1975 and May 1976.2 Prior to the New Hampshire action, Keeton had initially brought suit for libel and invasion of privacy in Ohio, where the magazine was published, but her libel claim was dismissed as barred by the Ohio statute of limitations and her invasion-of-privacy claim was dismissed as barred by the New York statute of limitations.3
Hustler Magazine's contacts with New Hampshire consist of the sale of some 10,000 to 15,000 copies of the magazine in that State each month.4 Keeton's only connection with New Hampshire is the circulation there of copies of the magazine that she assists in producing.5 The District Court dismissed her suit because it believed that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbade the application of New Hampshire’s long-arm statute to acquire personal jurisdiction over the respondent.6 The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal in 1982.7
The Court of Appeals observed that the single publication rule would require awarding damages caused in all states.8 It also stressed New Hampshire’s unusually long six-year limitations period for libel actions.9 New Hampshire was the only State where the suit would not have been time-barred when filed in October 1980.10 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1983.11
Whether regular monthly circulation of thousands of copies of a magazine in New Hampshire by an out-of-state publisher supports personal jurisdiction in a libel action based on the magazine's contents?12
The Due Process Clause requires that a state's assertion of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant be predicated on minimum contacts between the defendant and the state.13 The suit must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.14 Regular circulation of magazines in the forum state satisfies this standard in a libel action arising from the magazine contents.15 Such circulation is purposefully directed at the forum and cannot be characterized as random or fortuitous.16
Yes. Respondent Hustler Magazine, Inc. maintained regular monthly sales of thousands of copies in New Hampshire.17 These sales were purposefully directed at the state.18 The District Court found that the general course of conduct in circulating magazines throughout the state was purposefully directed at New Hampshire and inevitably affected persons in the state. Such contacts are sufficient to support jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine even when the single publication rule permits recovery of multistate damages.19
The Court of Appeals erred when it affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s suit for lack of personal jurisdiction.20 Respondent's continuous exploitation of the New Hampshire market means it must reasonably anticipate being haled into court there in a libel action.21 New Hampshire's long-arm statute extends to the limits of due process, and all requisites for personal jurisdiction are therefore present.22
Regular monthly circulation of thousands of copies supports personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state publisher in the libel action.23
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brennan agreed that respondent's regular circulation of magazines in the forum state is sufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction in a libel action based on the contents of the magazine.24 These contacts are sufficiently important and sufficiently related to the underlying cause of action to foreclose any concern that the constitutional limits of the Due Process Clause are being violated.25 This conclusion holds irrespective of the state's interest in enforcing its substantive libel laws or its unique statute of limitations.26
State interests are relevant only to the extent they bear upon the liberty interests of the respondent that are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.27
Whether a nonresident plaintiff's lack of contacts with New Hampshire defeats personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant whose magazines are regularly sold in the state?28
A plaintiff's lack of contacts with the forum state does not defeat personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the defendant's own contacts with the forum are sufficient.29 The jurisdictional inquiry focuses on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation rather than requiring the plaintiff to possess minimum contacts with the forum.30
No. Although petitioner Keeton resides in New York and her only connection with New Hampshire is the circulation of the magazine she assists in producing, the defendant's regular sales establish jurisdiction.31 Precedent demonstrates that jurisdiction may be upheld even when neither the plaintiff nor the subject matter of the action has any relation to the forum state.32 The defendant must carry on a continuous and systematic part of its general business there.33 Plaintiff's residence is not a separate requirement, and lack of residence will not defeat jurisdiction established on the basis of defendant's contacts.34
A nonresident plaintiff's lack of contacts with New Hampshire does not defeat personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant.35
Whether New Hampshire's six-year statute of limitations for libel and the single publication rule create unfairness that defeats personal jurisdiction in a multistate libel suit filed by a nonresident?36
Neither the single publication rule nor the forum state's unusually long statute of limitations defeats jurisdiction that is otherwise proper under the Due Process Clause.37 The applicability of the statute of limitations presents a choice-of-law question that arises only after jurisdiction is established and should not complicate or distort the jurisdictional inquiry.38
No. The Court of Appeals expressed concern that the single publication rule would require awarding damages caused in all states and that New Hampshire's six-year limitations period made the suit timely only in that forum.39 These considerations do not render jurisdiction unfair because the chance duration of statutes of limitations in nonforum jurisdictions has nothing to do with the contacts among respondent, New Hampshire, and the multistate libel action.40 Respondent, having chosen to enter the New Hampshire market, can be charged with knowledge of its laws.41
New Hampshire has an interest in redressing injuries occurring within the state.42 It also has an interest in cooperating with other states under the single publication rule.43 This combination demonstrates the propriety of requiring respondent to answer the multistate libel action in New Hampshire.44
New Hampshire's six-year statute of limitations and the single publication rule do not create unfairness that defeats personal jurisdiction.45