Also known as: purposefully avails · purposeful availment · purposefully avail · purposeful availment test · minimum contacts
Written by attorneys — see sources 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.
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.
Ezra Kulko married Sharon Kulko Horn in 1959 during a three-day stopover in California while en route from a military base in Texas to Korea. Both parties were New York domiciliaries who returned to New York after the marriage and Ezra's service. Their children Darwin and Ilsa were born in New York in 1961 and 1962. The family lived together in New York City until their separation in March 1972. Following the separation, Sharon moved to San Francisco, California. In September 1972, Sharon flew to New York to sign a separation agreement providing that the children would spend school years with their father and vacations with their mother in exchange for $3,000 annual child support payments during her custody periods. Sharon obtained a Haitian divorce incorporating the agreement and returned to California, where she remarried. The children resided with their father during the school year until December 1973, when Ilsa remained in California after her father bought her a one-way ticket. In January 1976 Darwin flew to California using a ticket sent by his mother. Less than one month after Darwin's arrival, Sharon commenced an action in California Superior Court to establish the Haitian divorce decree as a California judgment, modify it to award her full custody, and increase the father's child-support obligations. Ezra appeared specially and moved to quash service on the ground that he lacked sufficient minimum contacts with California. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court sustained the rulings in a 4-2 decision before Ezra appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
View casePedro 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.
Dennis Burnham married Francie Burnham in 1976 in West Virginia. In 1977 the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. In July 1987 the Burnhams separated. Mrs. Burnham, who intended to move to California, was visiting her parents in that State when she filed for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of extreme cruelty, seeking spousal and child support, custody of the children, and possession of the family home. In early August 1987 petitioner visited Mrs. Burnham in California to discuss the children and the separation. He took the children to San Francisco for a few days. Upon returning the children to Mrs. Burnham, petitioner was served with a summons and complaint for divorce filed in California Superior Court that also sought custody of the children. After being served, petitioner returned to New Jersey. In January 1988 petitioner made a special appearance in the California action and moved to quash service of process on the ground that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Superior Court denied the motion, and the State Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the state and federal courts.
View caseNo. 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…