Also known as: purposefully avails · purposeful availments · purposefully avail · purposeful availment doctrine · minimum contacts
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement in the minimum contacts analysis for personal jurisdiction that the defendant must have deliberately directed conduct toward the forum state. The defendant thereby invokes the benefits and protections of the forum's laws. Contacts created solely by the unilateral actions of the plaintiff or a third party do not satisfy the requirement.
Paige Porter, a New York resident, created a trust in Delaware naming her Florida sister as beneficiary. After the sister's move to Florida, the trustee continued administering the trust from Delaware. The sister later sued the trustee in Florida over distributions. The Florida court lacked jurisdiction because the trustee had not directed any activities toward Florida.
Paragon Construction, a Delaware firm, sent its sales representative to meet with a Washington customer and solicit orders. The customer later sued Paragon in Washington for breach of the resulting contract. Jurisdiction was proper because Paragon had deliberately sent its agent into the state to conduct business.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pilar Pena, a New York resident, owned shares in a Delaware corporation. A shareholder derivative suit was filed against her in Delaware based solely on that ownership. The Delaware court could not exercise jurisdiction because mere stock ownership did not constitute purposeful availment of Delaware's laws.
Progressive Healthcare, an Illinois medical-device maker, sold a unit to a retailer in Missouri. The Missouri buyer later moved to Oklahoma and was injured there. The Oklahoma plaintiff sued Progressive in Oklahoma. Jurisdiction failed because the device reached Oklahoma solely through the buyer's unilateral move.
Phoenix Technologies, a Japanese valve manufacturer, sold valves to a Taiwanese tire company knowing the tires would enter the U.S. market. One valve reached California and caused injury. The California plaintiff sued Phoenix there. Jurisdiction was lacking because Phoenix had not purposefully directed its sales activities at California.
Parker Phillips, a Texas insurer, mailed a reinsurance certificate to a California resident and collected premiums from California. After the insured died in California, the beneficiary sued Parker in California. Jurisdiction existed because Parker had deliberately entered into a contract with a forum resident and received payments from the forum.
No. A contract alone is insufficient unless the defendant deliberately reaches into the forum to create a substantial connection. Courts examine the quality and nature of the defendant's conduct rather than the mere existence of the agreement.
Supporting sources
No. Mere foreseeability that a product will enter the forum through the actions of others is not enough. The defendant must have purposefully directed its own conduct at the forum market.
Supporting sources
A website that specifically targets forum residents by accepting reservations, providing local information, or processing orders from the forum can constitute purposeful availment. Passive websites accessible nationwide generally do not.
Supporting sources
No. Contacts created solely by the plaintiff or a third party moving the defendant's product or person into the forum cannot satisfy the requirement. The defendant itself must have taken deliberate action directed at the forum.
Supporting sources
…to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam , if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U. S. 457, 463. See Holmes, J., in…