Appeal to Exercise Personal Jurisdiction In Arizona
Arizona's long-arm statute is very broad and is intended to allow Arizona to exert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident litigant to the maximum extent permitted by the United States Constitution. Houghton v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 112 Ariz. 365, 367, 542 P.2d 24, 26 (1975);
see also Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a). Consequently, we need only consider the constitutional limitations of asserting specific jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. See Batton v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 153 Ariz. 268, 270, 736 P.2d 2, 4 (1987).
Under the federal constitution, two factors govern the scope of personal jurisdiction: the defendant's minimum contacts with the forum state and the reasonableness of exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
The requisite contacts for specific jurisdiction exist if Barnard Vogler "purposefully created contacts" with Arizona, id. at 271, 736 P.2d at 5, or "'purposefully directed' its activities" at Arizona residents. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528, 105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774, 79 L. Ed. 2d 790, 104 S. Ct. 1473 (1984)). Furthermore, ABC's claim must arise out of or relate to Barnard Vogler's forum activities. Id.
The United States Supreme Court recognized such an exception in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 79 L. Ed. 2d 804, 104 S. Ct. 1482 (1984).
In Calder, a Florida reporter and editor wrote and published a magazine article impugning the professionalism of Shirley Jones, a California resident. Id. at 785-86. the defendants argued that mere foreseeability of an injury in California did not justify assertion of jurisdiction there. Id. at 789.
Nevertheless, the Court rejected this argument because the defendants' action did not constitute "mere untargeted negligence" but rather qualified as tortious activity expressly aimed at California. Id. at 789.
The magazine circulated in California, and Jones suffered the brunt of the harm to her reputation there, making California the "focal point" of both the story and the harm. Id.
The Eighth Circuit applied Calder to an accounting conspiracy claim in General Electric Capital Corp. v. Grossman, 991 F.2d 1376 (8th Cir. 1993).
Grossman arose out of an agreement by Air Canada to purchase the stock of Gelco Express United ("Express") from Gelco Corporation ("Gelco"). Id. at 1378.
Prior to the sale, Air Canada hired Peat Marwick Thorne ("Peat Marwick") to assist in investigating Express. Id. Peat Marwick discovered significant irregularities in Express's financial statements, which Touche Canada had previously audited. Id. at 1378-79.
Air Canada asked Gelco to waive the audit report requirement of the sale and accept instead a certification from Peat Marwick that Express had a positive net worth of a certain amount. Id.
Gelco agreed. Id. Peat Marwick accordingly sent a draft certification of net equity letter to Gelco in Minnesota. Id. at 1378. the parties then completed the sale. Id.