Also known as:most significant contacts test · most-significant-contact test · most significant contact test · most significant contacts
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory rule for determining corporate residence for venue purposes in a state divided into multiple judicial districts. The corporation is deemed to reside in any district whose contacts would suffice to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were treated as a separate state. When no district meets that threshold, the corporation resides in the single district containing its most significant contacts.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Small Lab Presence Insufficient
GreenField Remediation Corp. maintains its headquarters in the Northern District of Ohio and cleanup crews in the Southern District. Its only activity in the Eastern District is a small testing laboratory that analyzes samples shipped from elsewhere. Plaintiffs sue in the Eastern District and rely on corporate residence to establish venue. Because the laboratory contacts alone would not support personal jurisdiction if the Eastern District were a separate state, the court treats GreenField as residing elsewhere and grants the motion to dismiss for improper venue.
Louisiana Injury and California Plaintiff
A California corporation maintains its principal offices in the Northern District of California and a regional sales office in the Central District. Plaintiffs sue the corporation in the Southern District of California and rely on corporate residence to establish venue. Because the Southern District contacts alone would not support personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state, the court treats the corporation as residing in the Northern District under the most-significant-contacts test and transfers the case.
A New York corporation maintains its headquarters in the Southern District of New York and a manufacturing plant in the Western District. Plaintiffs sue the corporation in the Eastern District of New York and rely on corporate residence to establish venue. Because the Eastern District contacts alone would not support personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state, the court treats the corporation as residing in the Southern District under the most-significant-contacts test and dismisses for improper venue.
Babcock v. Jackson12 N.Y.2d p. 482, 240 N.Y.S.2d p. 750, 191 N.E.2d p. 284
Cuban Sugar Nationalization Dispute
A Delaware corporation maintains its headquarters in the District of Delaware and a branch office in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs sue the corporation in the Eastern District of New York and rely on corporate residence to establish venue. Because the Eastern District contacts alone would not support personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state, the court treats the corporation as residing in the Southern District under the most-significant-contacts test and transfers the case.
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino376 U.S. 398 (1964)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
How does the most-significant-contacts test determine corporate residence for venue?+
In a multi-district state the statute treats each district as if it were a separate state. A corporation resides in every district where its contacts would support personal jurisdiction. Only when no district meets that standard does the statute fall back to the single district of most significant contacts.
Supporting sources
What happens when a corporation has contacts in several districts but none sufficient for personal jurisdiction?+
The corporation is deemed to reside only in the one district containing its most significant contacts. That district then supplies the proper venue under the corporate-residence prong of the venue statute.
Supporting sources
Does the most-significant-contacts test apply only when the claim arises from events in that district?+
No. The test first asks whether the contacts would support personal jurisdiction if the district were a separate state. Specific jurisdiction may require relatedness, but general jurisdiction or other contacts can still satisfy the residence inquiry even if the particular claim is unrelated to those contacts.
Supporting sources
12 N.Y.2d p. 482, 240 N.Y.S.2d p. 750, 191 N.E.2d p. 284Conflict of Laws
…the parties' intention or the place of making or performance, lay emphasis rather upon the law of the place which has the most significant contacts with the matter in dispute'" (308 N.Y., at p. 160). The "center of gravity" rule of Auten has not only been applied in other cases in this State,[^maj-6] as well as in other…