Does ''Random Connection'' to Another State Confer Personal Jurisdiction ?
Federal due process requirements are two-fold.
First, the nonresident defendant must have purposefully established such minimum contacts with the forum state that it could reasonably anticipate being sued there. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475-76; 105 S. Ct. 2174, 2183-84, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985).
If the nonresident defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privileges and benefits of conducting business in a state, it has sufficient contacts to confer personal jurisdiction. Id.
Random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts do not suffice. Id.
It is the quality and nature of the contacts, rather than their number, that is important. Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.D., 815 S.W.2d 223, 230 n. 11 (Tex. 1991).
Minimum contacts are particularly important when the defendant is a foreign national because of the unique and onerous burden of defending a suit in a foreign legal system. Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 114; 107 S. Ct. 1026, 1033, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987); CSR, Ltd., 925 S.W.2d at 595.
Minimum contacts analysis is further divided into general and specific personal jurisdiction. CSR, Ltd., 925 S.W.2d at 595.
Appellees concede that this is a case of general personal jurisdiction, which requires Preussag AG to show its contacts in Texas were not continuous and systematic. Id.
To support a finding of general jurisdiction, the defendant's forum activities must have been "substantial," which requires stronger evidence of contacts than for specific personal jurisdiction.Id.
Second, if the nonresident defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice. Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475-76; 105 S. Ct. at 2183-84; Guardian Royal, 815 S.W.2d at 228.