Personal Jurisdiction In DC
(1) section 13-423 (a)(1) is coextensive in reach with the personal jurisdiction allowed by the due process clause of the United States Constitution;
(2) there are no "mechanical tests" or "talismanic formulas" for the determination of personal jurisdiction under 13-423 (a)(1) and (b), and the facts of each case must be weighed against notions of fairness, reasonableness and substantial justice;
(3) under the due process clause, the minimum contacts principle requires us to examine the quality and nature of the nonresident defendant's contacts with the District and whether those contacts are voluntary and deliberate or only random, fortuitous, tenuous and accidental;
(4) where a nonresident defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the District in engaging in a business activity in the forum jurisdiction, it is fair and reasonable to expect it to anticipate being sued in that jurisdiction;
(5) in examining the nonresident defendant's contacts with the District, the focus is placed on the relationship among the defendant, the forum and the litigation;
(6) it is reasonable and fair for the District to exercise specific jurisdiction where a nonresident defendant has purposefully directed its activities at District residents, and claims against it by a District resident "arise out of or relate to," Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472, or have a "substantial connection" with, McGee, supra note 8, 355 U.S. at 223, the business transacted in the District;
(7) the District has a manifest interest in providing a convenient forum in which its residents may seek relief for injuries inflicted by the nonresident defendant, especially where litigation within the District would not impose an undue burden on the nonresident defendant.