The opinion of the court was delivered by: Goldberg, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case involves claims raised by Plaintiff, Steven Verona, alleging that Defendants, U.S. Bancorp, Voyager Fleet Systems and K.E. Austin, reneged on various contractual obligations pertaining to a pre-purchase gasoline business started by Verona.
Before the Court is Defendant K.E. Austin's motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), to either dismiss Plaintiffs' eight-count Complaint or transfer venue. In support of this Motion, K.E. Austin asserts that it lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to subject them to personal jurisdiction in this forum. As this Court agrees with K.E. Austin, this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
I. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE MOTION
According to the Complaint, Steven Verona, the founder and CEO of MyGallons, LLC and Zenacon, LLC, designed the MyGallons program:
. . . to allow consumers to pre-purchase gasoline on the MyGallons website at current prices and have the gallons accrue in their MyGallons accounts. Consumers would be issued MyGallons cards, similar to debit cards. They could then redeem their gallons in the future at any service station where the MyGallons card was accepted, without regard to the future price of gasoline, thus protecting themselves from rising gasoline prices. (Complaint, ¶ 4). In order for his program to operate, Verona required access to a payment processing network that would allow for the MyGallons card to be accepted at service stations. To that end, he approached U.S. Bancorp in the spring of 2008 to negotiate a contract for use of the Voyager Fleet Systems network, which is accepted at approximately 95% of gas service stations across the country.*fn1 (Complaint, ¶ 5). According to Verona, he discussed his idea with officers from U.S. Bancorp and Voyager Fleet Systems and was directed to work with K.E. Austin, an authorized reseller of the Voyager network and a corporation located in North Carolina. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6-7).
On March 17, 2008, Verona, who was a Pennsylvania citizen at the time, visited K.E. Austin's website and completed an application found on that website. Verona filled out the application on behalf of Zenacon, LLC, and faxed it to K.E. Austin, in North Carolina. On the application, Verona listed his own Pennsylvania address, as well as a Pennsylvania address for Zenacon, which was an Ohio entity. (Verona Affidavit, ¶ 5; Dorroll Affidavit, ¶ 6).*fn2 After Verona completed the application, he claims that he communicated with K.E. Austin, "regularly and repeatedly both over the telephone and via e-mail, predominately from Pennsylvania." (Verona Affidavit, ¶ 6). During these communications, all of K.E. Austin's personnel were located in North Carolina. (Dorroll Affidavit, ¶ 8).
Thereafter, Verona informed K.E. Austin that he intended to change the contracting entity from Zenacon to MyGallons, LLC, located in Florida. (Verona Affidavit, ¶ 7; Dorroll Affidavit, ¶ 9). MyGallons, LLC was formed on April 14, 2008, and listed its registered agent as Brent Levinson, a Florida attorney. (Dorroll Affidavit, ¶ 12). On May 20, 2008, Verona submitted an application contract for MyGallons, LLC to K.E. Austin. Around the same time, Verona notified K.E. Austin that he was personally moving to Florida. (Verona Affidavit, ¶¶ 7, 9; Dorroll Affidavit, ¶ 14). Throughout this time, Verona claims he and K.E. Austin continued to work together on a pilot program and the MyGallons venture. (Verona Affidavit, ¶ 8; Dorroll Affidavit, ¶¶ 15-17).
MyGallons was launched to the public on June 30, 2008, but according to Verona: . . . despite having valid contracts in place with [K.E. Austin] for use of US Bank's Voyager network, shortly after MyGallons was launched with great fanfare, on or about July 1, 2008, US Bank refused to honor the contracts and agreements and denied MyGallons access to the Voyager network. Two days later, on July 3, 2008, US Bank falsely denied - to the press - that US Bank or Voyager had any relationship with MyGallons or Steven Verona. (Complaint, ¶ 12).
Verona has alleged that the defendants' actions destroyed the company's launch. (Complaint, ¶¶ 13-15). Specifically, on August 22, 2008, Verona, along with MyGallons, LLC, and Zenacon, LLC, sued U.S. Bancorp, Voyager Fleet Systems, and K.E. Austin in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging: breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with existing and prospective contractual relations, defamation, disparagement, and false light. Defendants U.S. Bancorp and Voyager Fleet Systems filed their Answer on October 21, 2008, and K.E. Austin filed the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue on October 30, 2008.
K.E. Austin has moved for dismissal or transfer of the case based on a lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). When deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we must accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Dayhoff, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287, 1302 (3d Cir. 1996). However, a 12(b)(2) motion, "is inherently a matter which requires resolution of factual issues outside the pleadings, i.e. whether in personam jurisdiction actually lies." Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 66 n.9 (3d Cir. 1984). Once personal jurisdiction is challenged, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the district court has personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defendant. A plaintiff must satisfy this burden through the use of affidavits or other competent evidence. Id.
"A federal district court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident of the state in which the court sits to the extent authorized by the law of that state." Provident Nat'l Bank v. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 819 F.2d 434, 436 (3d Cir. 1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)). Pennsylvania's long arm statute authorizes Pennsylvania courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents to the "fullest extent allowed under the Constitution of the United States." 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(b). The due process clause of the United States Constitution permits personal jurisdiction so long as the non-resident defendant has certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
Personal jurisdiction may be exercised under two distinct theories - general or specific. Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir. 2001). General jurisdiction is proper where a defendant's contacts with the forum state are "continuous and systematic" and exists whether or not the cause of action is related to a defendant's activities in Pennsylvania. Id. Specific jurisdiction exists only if the plaintiff's cause ...