minimum contacts analysis in North Carolina

2025See Mucha, 378 N.C. at 174; see also Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316 (establishing the minimum contacts test required for due process).

2025See Mucha, 378 N.C. at 174; see also Int’l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 316 (establishing the minimum contacts test required for due process).

2018Instead, the minimum contacts analysis must "focus[ ] on the actions of the non-resident defendant over whom jurisdiction is asserted, and not on the unilateral actions of some other entity." Centura Bank v. Pee Dee Express, Inc. , 119 N.C.

2015App. 210 , 211–14, 458 S.E.2d 15 , 17–19 (1995), the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over two individual defendants who had personally guaranteed leases executed by the defendant company – a South Carolina corporation in which the two individual defendants were officers and sole shareholders – with a North Carolina banking corporation, where the defendant company had customers in North Carolina, traveled within North Carolina, and “did some business in North Carolina.” Similarly, here, Venesky’s guaranty of the Asheville property lease

2015See, e.g., Coleman, 296 N.C. at 518 , 251 S.E.2d at 615 (explaining that the minimum contacts analysis should not entail “automatic application of per se rules” but instead “depends upon the {29} Additionally, it is undisputed that Venesky periodically discussed with Luke and Gentry the financial viability of continuing MDI-NC’s operations and was involved with the winding up of MDI-NC’s operations.

2015See, e.g., Coleman, 296 N.C. at 518 , 251 S.E.2d at 615 (explaining that the minimum contacts analysis should not entail “automatic application of per se rules” but instead “depends upon the {29} Additionally, it is undisputed that Venesky periodically discussed with Luke and Gentry the financial viability of continuing MDI-NC’s operations and was involved with the winding up of MDI-NC’s operations.

2008"Application of the minimum contacts rule `will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities *913 within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'" Skinner v. Preferred Credit, 361 N.C. 114, 123 , 638 S.E.2d 203, 210-211 (2006) (quoting Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 705 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 679 (1974)).

2008"Application of the minimum contacts rule `will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities *913 within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'" Skinner v. Preferred Credit, 361 N.C. 114, 123 , 638 S.E.2d 203, 210-211 (2006) (quoting Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 705 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 679 (1974)).

2022See Ellison v. Ellison, 242 N.C.

2022See Ellison v. Ellison, 242 N.C.

2009In applying the minimum contacts rule, Burger King held that "where the defendant deliberately has ... created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there[.]" Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475-76 , 105 S.Ct. at 2183-84 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 543 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

2009In applying the minimum contacts rule, Burger King held that "where the defendant deliberately has ... created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum, he manifestly has availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there[.]" Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475-76 , 105 S.Ct. at 2183-84 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 543 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

2005Recognizing the "serious constitutional problems that would arise were we to hold otherwise," this Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss stating, "[w]e believe that if we read G.S. 1-75.4(6)(b) to give the North Carolina court jurisdiction for a suit against the defendant for an accounting of money she received on the note it would violate the rule of Shaffer. " Id. at 602 , 289 S.E.2d at 889-90 (following the minimum contacts analysis in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)).

2005Recognizing the "serious constitutional problems that would arise were we to hold otherwise," this Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss stating, "[w]e believe that if we read G.S. 1-75.4(6)(b) to give the North Carolina court jurisdiction for a suit against the defendant for an accounting of money she received on the note it would violate the rule of Shaffer. " Id. at 602 , 289 S.E.2d at 889-90 (following the minimum contacts analysis in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 , 97 S.Ct. 2569 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)).

1995Application of the minimum contacts standard “ ‘will vary with the quality and nature of defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’ ” Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 705 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 679 (1974) (quoting, Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 , 2 L.

1995Application of the minimum contacts standard “ ‘will vary with the quality and nature of defendant’s activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.’ ” Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 705 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 679 (1974) (quoting, Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 , 78 S.Ct. 1228 , 2 L.

2020Accordingly, the Court concludes that Smart & Final’s “connections with North Carolina relating to the contract satisf[y] the minimum contacts inquiry and establish[ ] the existence of specific jurisdiction.” Beem USA, 373 N.C. at 304, 838 S.E.2d at 163 (citation omitted); see also Tom Togs, 318 N.C. at 368 , 348 S.E.2d at 787 ; Nat’l Util.

2020Accordingly, the Court concludes that Smart & Final’s “connections with North Carolina relating to the contract satisf[y] the minimum contacts inquiry and establish[ ] the existence of specific jurisdiction.” Beem USA, 373 N.C. at 304, 838 S.E.2d at 163 (citation omitted); see also Tom Togs, 318 N.C. at 368 , 348 S.E.2d at 787 ; Nat’l Util.

2021Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011); Beem, 373 N.C. at 303.

2021Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 , 131 S. Ct. 2846 , 180 L.

2012App. 142, 145 , 377 S.E.2d 75, 77-78 (1989) (explaining that “[i]n cases involving specific jurisdiction, the focus of the minimum contacts inquiry is on the relationship among the defend-ant, the forum state, and the litigation[;] [t]he resolution of the inquiry necessarily turns on the facts of each case, . . . but it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the forum state’s laws”) (internal citations omitted).

1991Buck v. Heavner, 93 N.C.

2022And “jurisdiction over the individual officers [and directors] of a corporation cannot be predicated merely upon jurisdiction over the corporation.” Balance Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Indus., 204 F.3d 683, 698 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 3 3 Federal courts routinely hold that similarly generalized allegations against corporate officials are insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction.

2016We conclude that such minimum contacts analysis is not necessary, however, when the defendant is personally served while present within the forum state . *194 Id. at 68, 361 S.E.2d at 583 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).

2016Id. at 68-69 , 361 S.E.2d at 583 (internal citations omitted).

2015App. at 600 , 659 S.E.2d at 52 (Arrowood, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). {36} Defendants appear to construe Saft to stand for the proposition that an individual’s contacts with North Carolina, as developed solely through his status as a company officer, do not “count” – or at least, cannot alone suffice – to confer personal jurisdiction under a minimum contacts analysis.

2011See, e.g., Lang v. Lang, 157 N.C.

2008"Application of the minimum contacts rule `will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities *913 within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'" Skinner v. Preferred Credit, 361 N.C. 114, 123 , 638 S.E.2d 203, 210-211 (2006) (quoting Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 705 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 679 (1974)).

2008"Application of the minimum contacts rule `will vary with the quality and nature of the defendant's activity, but it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities *913 within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.'" Skinner v. Preferred Credit, 361 N.C. 114, 123 , 638 S.E.2d 203, 210-211 (2006) (quoting Chadbourn, Inc. v. Katz, 285 N.C. 700, 705 , 208 S.E.2d 676, 679 (1974)).

2008App. 637, 639 , 335 S.E.2d 794, 796 (1985) (quotation omitted). “[W]hile application of the minimum contacts standard will vary with the quality and nature of defendant’s activity, it is essential in each case that there be some act by which defendant purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state . . . .” Buying Group, Inc. v. Coleman, 296 N.C. 510, 515 , 251 S.E.2d 610, 614 (1979) (internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted) (citation omitted).