personal jurisdiction analysis in Tennessee

2025Luna, 208 S.W.3d at 406 ; compare In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 138 S.W.3d 202, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (tying relevant considerations in forum non conveniens context to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)), with Crouch Ry.

2015This Court confronted a similar situation in In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 138 S.W.3d 202 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003), In Bridge-stone/Firestone, the plaintiffs were all residents of Mexico who had been injured in automobile accidents throughout Mexico.

2025Luna, 208 S.W.3d at 406 ; compare In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 138 S.W.3d 202, 207 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (tying relevant considerations in forum non conveniens context to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)), with Crouch Ry.

2025First Cmty. Bank, N.A., 489 S.W.3d at 388 (instructing courts “to analyze first whether the defendant’s activities in the state that gave rise to the cause of action constitute sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state to support specific jurisdiction” (citing International Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316 )).

2025Consulting, LLC, 610 S.W.3d at 485, forum non conveniens claims are instead judged by assessing “various private and public factors” that are considerably more expansive and differently articulated than the fairness factors germane to the personal jurisdiction analysis.

2025Consulting, LLC, 610 S.W.3d at 485, forum non conveniens claims are instead judged by assessing “various private and public factors” that are considerably more expansive and differently articulated than the fairness factors germane to the personal jurisdiction analysis.

2017Rather, because it was the mother who had chosen to move to California, the Court ruled: “[t]he unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. . . . [I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails [him]self of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State . . . .” Kulko, 436 U.S. at 93 -94 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).

2011See also id. at 613 n. 4 (explaining how the distinction between what the defendant knew and should have known is immaterial to the personal jurisdiction analysis).

2009See Doe v. SexSearch.com, 551 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 2008).

1999Id.; see also Dooley v. Dooley, 980 S.W.2d 369, 371-72 (Tenn. App. 1998) (noting that defendant who unsuccessfully raises personal jurisdiction defense has no alternative except to answer and defend or risk entry of default judgment).