federal Constitution. Time Share, 735 F.2d at 63.
Due process requirements are satisfied in cases concerning the assertion of in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident where it is demonstrated that the nonresident has such minimum contacts with the forum state that ". . . the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 90 L. Ed. 95, 66 S. Ct. 154 (1945), quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S. Ct. 339 (1940). Two types of personal jurisdiction have been identified by the courts. General jurisdiction exists when the defendant has maintained continuous and substantial contacts with the forum, but the claim against the defendant is unrelated to or does not arise from these contacts. Specific jurisdiction exists in cases in which the claim is related to or arises out of the asserted minimum contacts which the defendant has with the forum. In order to establish specific jurisdiction, there must be such minimum contacts as establish a relationship between the defendant, the forum and the litigation. Dollar Savings Bank v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A., 746 F.2d 208, 211 (3d Cir. 1984). Because it is uncontroverted that the defendant has no continuing presence in Pennsylvania, my attention will be devoted to the issue of specific jurisdiction.
The critical purpose of minimum contacts analysis is to guarantee that individuals have fair warning that engaging in a particular activity may subject them to the jurisdiction of a foreign jurisdiction. Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2182, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985). This fair warning requirement is satisfied if the defendant has purposely directed his activities at a resident of the forum state. Id.; Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774, 79 L. Ed. 2d 790, 104 S. Ct. 1473 (1984). More specifically, with respect to interstate contractual obligations, the Supreme Court has emphasized that parties who have reached out and created continuing relationships and obligations with citizens of another state may be properly subject to sanctions and regulation in the other state for the consequences of their activities. Burger King, 105 S. Ct. at 2182; McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 222-223, 2 L. Ed. 2d 223, 78 S. Ct. 199 (1957). The court must look to such factors as prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, the terms of the contract, and the parties' course of dealing in determining whether the defendant purposely established minimum contacts with the forum. Burger King, 105 S. Ct. at 2186.
The claim against the defendant is based upon a separation agreement which set forth certain support obligations imposed upon the defendant. This claim certainly is related to a number of contacts which the defendant has with Pennsylvania. The marriage itself began, existed, and ended in Pennsylvania. The separation agreement was negotiated and executed by the defendant and plaintiff while both of them were residents of Pennsylvania. The agreement contains a choice of law provision which provides that it shall be "construed by, and governed in accordance with, the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania."
Clearly in this case, the plaintiff intentionally created a contractual relationship with a Pennsylvania resident in Pennsylvania while he himself was a Pennsylvania resident. It is entirely fair to subject him to the jurisdiction of a court located in that state. See McGee, 355 U.S. 220, 223-224, 2 L. Ed. 2d 223, 78 S. Ct. 199 (Jurisdiction upheld where insurance contract was delivered by mail by defendant to California resident in California). This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the contract expressly provides that Pennsylvania law would govern disputes over the contract. As the Supreme Court noted in the Burger King case, although such a provision standing alone would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction, it does reinforce the defendant's deliberate affiliation with the forum state and the reasonable foreseeability that he might be haled into court in that state. 105 S. Ct. at 2187.
Having established that the defendant has purposefully created minimum contacts with the forum state, I must determine whether other factors would nevertheless cause the assertion of personal jurisdiction to violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Burger King, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528. These factors include the burden on the defendant in litigating in a distant forum, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490, 100 S. Ct. 559 (1980). The burden is placed on the defendant, however, to present a compelling case demonstrating that one or more of these factors requires the court to decline otherwise proper jurisdiction. Burger King, 105 S. Ct. at 2185. The defendant has failed to present any persuasive argument to that effect. For these reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction will be dismissed.
Upon consideration of the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, the plaintiff's response thereto, and the memoranda and affidavits filed by the parties, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum,
It is Ordered that the defendant's motion is denied; it is further
Ordered that defendant shall filed an answer to the complaint within ten (10) days; all discovery shall be completed by March 20, 1987; pretrial memoranda shall be filed by the parties by March 31, 1987.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.