MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Dommel's Hotel, Inc., (Dommel's) brought this action against defendants East West Helicopter, Inc. (East West) and W. Barry Pruss (Pruss) alleging breach of contract, negligence and fraud arising out of the defendants' sale of a helicopter to the plaintiff. The defendants have moved to dismiss the action for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The relevant facts are not in dispute.
Plaintiff, Dommel's, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Defendant, East West, is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Harrison, Ohio. It has been in the business of selling, servicing and repairing helicopters and helicopter parts since its founding in 1976. Defendant, Pruss is the president of East West and has held that position since 1978. Prior to that time he was vice president of the company. He resides in Aurora, Indiana.
East West has never conducted or solicited business in the State of Pennsylvania. Nor has Pruss so acted on his own behalf or that of East West. Neither defendant has ever:
1. owned or rented any real or personal property in Pennsylvania;
2. maintained an office or place of business in Pennsylvania;
3. obtained a telephone listing in Pennsylvania;
4. maintained bank accounts or records in Pennsylvania;
5. paid any taxes or filed any government reports in Pennsylvania; or
6. advertised in any Pennsylvania publications.
Turning our attention to the specifics of the matter at bar, it is agreed that all actions relating to the sales agreement in question took place in Ohio. In October, 1980, Bruce Dodd, a pilot for Dommel's, inquired about the possibility of purchasing a helicopter from East West. Following this initial contact, Dodd visited East West's plant in Harrison, Ohio, to inspect the helicopter and review certain records pertaining to it. Dodd's visit to Ohio was followed by another visit there by Robert Dommel on or about October 24, 1980. At that time, Dommel negotiated the terms of the agreement for the purchase of the helicopter. An agreement for a purchase price of $169,000.00 was prepared and executed by Dommel and Pruss that day. Dommel also gave Pruss a $20,000.00 down payment.
The following month, Dodd returned to Ohio to complete the transaction. After receiving an invoice and bill of sale for the helicopter, he paid East West the balance of the purchase price and departed in the helicopter. At all times relevant to this action the parties were aware that the helicopter was being purchased for principal use in Pennsylvania.
Defendants contend that dismissal is warranted because their contacts with Pennsylvania are insufficient for this Court to assert personal jurisdiction over them. Plaintiff, conceding a dearth of contacts, insists that in personam jurisdiction is appropriate solely because "the helicopter was sold with full knowledge and intention that it should be principally used and hangared in Pennsylvania".
When a plaintiff seeks to assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant for reasons other than his consent or his general presence within the forum, either personally or through his agent,
the Court must first determine whether the claim or cause of action arises from the defendant's forum-related activities or non-forum-related activities, focusing on the relationship of the transaction giving rise to the lawsuit to the forum where the plaintiff seeks to litigate it.
Webb Research Corp. v. Rockland Industries, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 990, 992, slip op. at 3 (E.D. Pa. 1983); Reliance Steel Products Co. v. Watson, Ess, Marshall and Enggas, 675 F.2d 587, 588 (3d Cir. 1982).
If the claim arises from forum-related activity, there must be sufficient contacts with the forum arising out of that specific activity to warrant asserting jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant. Reliance Steel Products Company, supra, at 588. The contacts should be such that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend "our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice". International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320, 90 L. Ed. 95, 66 S. Ct. 154 (1945). The Supreme Court later described this fairness concept as requiring "The defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State [to be] such that he should reasonably anticipate being hailed into court there". World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490, 100 S. Ct. 559 (1980).
However, if the claim arises from non-forum-related activity, the non-resident defendant's contacts with the forum must be "qualitatively and quantitatively greater than where the cause of action is forum-related". Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee v. L'Union Atlantique S.A. D'Assurances, 723 F.2d 357, 362, slip op. at 8-9 (3d Circuit 1983). The courts have required a plaintiff to show that the defendant has maintained "continuous and systematic" forum affiliations. International Shoe Co., supra, at 317-320; Reliance Steel Products Company, supra, at 588.
As a district court sitting in diversity, we must apply the laws of the state in which we sit. Therefore, we begin our inquiry by looking to Pennsylvania's long-arm statute. The Pennsylvania statute reflects the forum-related/non-forum-related analysis which we have previously described.
Under 42 PA. CONST. STAT. ANN. § 5322(b), the personal jurisdiction of all courts within the Commonwealth shall extend
to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States and may be based on the most minimum contact with this Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States. (emphasis added)