Also known as: purposeful activities · purposeful availment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Conduct by which a defendant deliberately directs activities toward a forum state so as to invoke the benefits and protections of its laws. The inquiry focuses on the defendant's own intentional contacts rather than the unilateral actions of the plaintiff or the mere foreseeability that a product or effect might reach the forum.
Pioneer Energy sold a generator in State A. A buyer later moved the unit to State B without any action by Pioneer. When the generator failed and injured a State B resident, the resident sued Pioneer in State B court. Because Pioneer never directed sales, advertising, or service efforts toward State B, its conduct did not constitute purposeful activity sufficient for specific jurisdiction.
Platinum Partners, a national franchisor headquartered in State X, negotiated and executed a twenty-year franchise agreement with Perry Pratt that required Pratt to operate a restaurant in State Y. The agreement contained extensive State Y performance obligations and revenue-sharing terms. Pratt later sued in State Y court. Platinum Partners' deliberate negotiation and ongoing contractual commitments directed at State Y supplied the purposeful activity needed for specific jurisdiction.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pacific Bank operated a website that allowed State Z residents to open accounts, transfer funds, and receive State Z-specific loan promotions. Paige Porter, a State Z resident, opened an account and later sued the bank in State Z court over alleged account mismanagement. The bank's repeated, targeted online transactions and promotions aimed at State Z residents demonstrated purposeful activity supporting specific jurisdiction.
Patriot Insurance manufactured valves in State W and sold them to a national distributor that resold the valves nationwide. A valve reached State V through the distributor and caused an injury there. Patriot never advertised, maintained dealers, or performed service in State V. Its mere placement of the component into the national stream of commerce without additional forum-directed conduct did not amount to purposeful activity.
Philip Powell owned shares in a Delaware corporation whose officers were sued in Delaware over corporate mismanagement. Powell had never transacted business in Delaware or directed any corporate activity there. The mere ownership of stock located in Delaware did not constitute purposeful activity sufficient to support personal jurisdiction over Powell.
Pioneer Energy maintained a California subsidiary that sold vehicles throughout the United States. A State A plaintiff injured in State A sued the German parent in State A court, citing the subsidiary's nationwide sales. The parent's lack of direct, purposeful activity in State A meant that the subsidiary's volume of sales alone could not create jurisdiction over the parent.
No. The mere foreseeability that a product sold elsewhere might later enter the forum is insufficient. The defendant must itself direct activities toward the forum to invoke its benefits and protections.
Supporting sources
No. When the defendant continues preexisting services from outside the forum without knowledge of or targeting the new state, the plaintiff's relocation alone supplies no purposeful activity by the defendant.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a defendant ships dozens of orders over multiple years into the forum and runs forum-specific promotions, those deliberate commercial acts directed at forum residents constitute purposeful activity supporting specific jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
Yes. Creating content that singles out forum buildings and individuals and purchasing geo-targeted ads shown to users located in the forum demonstrates intentional direction of harmful conduct at the forum sufficient for purposeful activity.
Supporting sources
…with the State. Their decision to incorporate in Delaware was a matter of corporate law convenience and did not constitute purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in Delaware. B The quasi in rem theory is equally unavailing. Under this theory, the Delaware courts asserted jurisdiction because the suit was…