Views
4 years ago

YA Global Investments, L.P. v. Cliff - Appellate Law NJ Blog

YA Global Investments, L.P. v. Cliff - Appellate Law NJ Blog

II New Jersey exercises

II New Jersey exercises long-arm jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to the extent “consistent with due process of law.” R. 4:4-4(b)(1); Avdel Corp. v. Mecure, 58 N.J. 264, 268 (1971) (noting that New Jersey exercises its long-arm jurisdiction "to the uttermost limits permitted by the United States Constitution"); Reliance Nat'l Ins. Co. in Liquidation v. Dana Transport, Inc., 376 N.J. Super. 537, 543 (App. Div. 2005). Due process requires only that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with New Jersey such that the maintenance of the suit here does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Reliance, supra, 376 N.J. Super. at 543 (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158, 90 L. Ed. 95, 102 (1945)); accord Nicastro v. McIntryre Mach. Am., Ltd., 201 N.J. 48, 63 (2010). The determination of whether a defendant has had sufficient “minimum contacts” with a state to warrant the exercise of personal jurisdiction calls for a case-by-case analysis of a defendant’s relationship with the proposed forum state. Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 138 N.J. 106, 122 (1994) (citing Charles Gendler & Co. v. Telecom Equip. Corp., 102 N.J. 460, 470 (1986)). The first step in that analysis involves an examination of whether a defendant has “purposefully availed” 6 A-3033-09T2

himself of engaging in activities in that state, such that he should reasonably expect being haled into court there. Waste Mgmt., supra, 138 N.J. at 120-21. Such an examination is aimed at ensuring that a defendant will not be compelled to participate in litigation in a foreign jurisdiction “on the basis of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or as a result of the unilateral activity of some other party.” Id. at 121 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 542 (1985)). The second step of the analysis is to consider “fair play and substantial justice,” affording a defendant the opportunity to “make a ‘compelling case’ that some consideration makes the exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable.” Id. at 124 (quoting Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at 477, 105 S. Ct. at 2184, 85 L. Ed. 2d at 544). Examples of such considerations include: “the burden on defendant, the interests of the forum state, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief, the interstate judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution of disputes, and the shared interest of the states in furthering substantive social policies.” Id. at 125 (citing Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc., 115 N.J. 317, 328-29 (1989)). Personal jurisdiction is a “waiveable right,” that is, a non-resident defendant may choose to consent to the jurisdiction 7 A-3033-09T2

Mosteller v. Naiman - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Perrelli v. Pastorelle - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Lucante v. Lucante - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Grijalba v. Floro - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Voellinger v. Dow - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Baskett v. Cheung - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Nordstrom v. Lyon - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Conforti v. Kantorowski - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Mastropole v. Giunta - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Barna v. Maldonado - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Price v. Himeji, LLC - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Flaherty v. New Jersey - Appellate Law NJ Blog
not for publication without the approval of the - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Walid v. Yolanda for Irene Couture, Inc. - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Belmont Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Geibel - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Estate of Desir v. Vertus - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Abulkhair v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Raspavolo v. New Jersey State Police - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Motley v. Division of State Police - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Mayer v. Once Upon a Rose, Inc. - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Nicholas v. Mynster - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc. - Appellate Law NJ Blog
Futterman v. Board of Review - Appellate Law NJ Blog