Also known as: purposefully avails · purposeful availment · purposefully avail · purposeful availment test · minimum contacts
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A threshold element of the minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction requiring that the defendant have deliberately directed its activities toward the forum state so as to invoke the benefits and protections of its laws. Unilateral conduct by the plaintiff or a third party cannot satisfy the requirement.
Preston Pratt, a Florida resident, created a trust for his grandchildren and named a Delaware trustee. After the grandchildren moved to Florida with their mother, one grandchild sued the trustee in Florida court over trust administration. The trustee had never traveled to Florida or directed any trust activity there. Because the trustee took no deliberate steps to reach into Florida, the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
Phoenix Technologies hired sales agents who repeatedly visited customers in Washington and took orders there. When Washington assessed unemployment taxes on those sales, Phoenix resisted on jurisdictional grounds. The company's systematic solicitation of business in the state supplied the necessary contacts for jurisdiction over the tax claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Paula Pierce owned shares in a Delaware corporation whose only asset was real property in Delaware. A nonresident plaintiff attached those shares in a Delaware court to satisfy an unrelated judgment. Because the shares' presence resulted solely from the corporation's incorporation and not from any purposeful act by Pierce directed at Delaware, jurisdiction failed.
Premier Manufacturing sold a defective tire to a New York retailer. The buyer later drove the tire to Oklahoma, where it caused an accident. The injured Oklahoma plaintiff sued Premier in Oklahoma. Because Premier had never sought to serve the Oklahoma market or direct any sales efforts there, the state court could not exercise jurisdiction.
Paul Peterson, a New York resident, agreed that his daughter could spend part of the year with her mother in California. When the mother later sued for increased child support in California, Peterson objected. His mere acquiescence in the child's travel did not constitute purposeful availment of California law.
Pedro Pacheco flew to California for a three-day business conference. While there he was served with a lawsuit arising from an earlier transaction that had no connection to California. The brief presence for an unrelated purpose did not constitute purposeful availment of California law for the unrelated claim.
No. A contract alone is insufficient. The defendant must have deliberately reached out to the forum through additional conduct such as repeated negotiations directed at the forum, acceptance of forum payments, or customization of performance for forum needs.
Supporting sources
No. Stream-of-commerce sales require evidence that the defendant specifically targeted the forum state. Sales to a wholesaler without forum-specific marketing, contracts, or distribution agreements do not create the required contacts.
Supporting sources
No. The minimum contacts standard applies to quasi in rem actions. Mere presence of property unrelated to the dispute does not itself create the purposeful contacts needed for jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
It depends on the quality and volume of the contacts. Sustained negotiations, customized performance for the forum party, and acceptance of forum payments can demonstrate deliberate targeting, while isolated or plaintiff-initiated contacts usually do not.
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…