the representatives stated that personnel of Alpha Press had recently rebuilt their press.
The final affidavit is by John Danko, who is a vice-president of plaintiff's employer. It simply states that items were purchased directly from Alpha Press for the maintenance of an Alpha Press machine. Documents evidencing these sales and shipments to Saegertown, Pennsylvania, are attached.
In response to plaintiff's affidavit, Alpha Press has submitted two of its own by its president, Adolf Weiss. The first states, inter alia, that: 1) all presses, spare parts, and other items sold by Alpha Press are shipped f.o.b. Alpha, New Jersey; 2) all sales by Alpha Press are done by "in house" personnel who are located at Alpha, New Jersey; and 3) the press which injured plaintiff was sold to an anticipated "end user" in Hendersonville, North Carolina.
Weiss' second affidavit states, inter alia, that 1) Alpha Press did not provide the information for or pay for any listing in either McRae's or Thomas; 2) Alpha Press does not solicit the servicing of machinery, and does not sell service contracts nor does it have any service contracts; and 3) that Alpha Press' servicing is done strictly [on Alpha Press Products] on a call by call basis and if it is requested or necessary that service be done at a location other than Alpha, New Jersey, the company or entity requesting the service must pay for and assume the obligations associated with any travel to other places."
Plaintiff alleges that we may assert personal jurisdiction over Alpha Press on the basis of the Pennsylvania long arm statute. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(b). That section authorizes exercise of personal jurisdiction "to the fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States . . . based on the most minimum contact with the Commonwealth allowed under the Constitution of the United States."
"The Constitutional touchstone of the determination whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with due process 'remains whether the defendant purposefully established minimum contacts in the forum state.'" Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 109, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92, 107 S. Ct. 1026 (1987), quoting, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985). Critical to this due process analysis is a "forseeability that the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 62 L. Ed. 2d 490, 100 S. Ct. 559 (1980). "The application of that rule will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283, 78 S. Ct. 1228 (1958).
When a corporation "purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State," Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. [235,] 253, [2 L. Ed. 2d 1283, 78 S. Ct. 1228 (1958)], it has clear notice that it is subject to suit there, and can act to alleviate the risk of burdensome litigation by procuring insurance, passing the expected costs on to customers, or, if the risks are too great severing its connection with the State. Hence if the sale of a product of a manufacturer or distributor . . . is not simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the manufacturer or distributor to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its product in other States, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit in one of those States if its allegedly defective merchandise has there been the source of injury to its owners or to others.