E.D. Va. Holds That Personal Jurisdiction Requires Claim-By-Claim Analysis

Remarkably, in the 65 years since the Supreme Court decided International Shoe v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), courts have yet to reach a firm conclusion that personal jurisdiction requires a claim-by-claim analysis if the defendant does not have "systematic and continuous" contacts with the forum state.  In fact, as Judge Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia recently stated, the issue remains unresolved in the Fourth Circuit and, indeed, in all but the First, Third, and Fifth Circuits. 

In those circuits, the courts have held that, unless a party is subject to "general jurisdiction" arising from the party's systematic and continuous contacts with the forum state, the personal jurisdiction analysis requires the court to examine the defendant's contacts with the forum state that give rise to each claim alleged in the complaint.

Even more remarkably, in Gatekeeper Inc. v. Stratech Systems, Ltd., neither the plaintifff nor the defendant argued that specific jurisdiction requires such a case-by-case analysis.  At issue were two claims:  breach of contract pertaining to a settlement agreement executed and performed in part in Virginia, and a tortious interference with contract claim arising out of acts allegedly committed outside of Virginia.  The defendants conceded that the court had specific jurisdiction as to the breach of contract claim; however, the defendants argued that they were entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and, thus, the tortious interference claim should be dismissed since personal jurisdiction no longer gave rise to any active claim in the case.  As the court put it, "the parties assuem that if one active claim arises directly from Stratech defendants' specific contacts with Virginia, then personal jurisdiction is proper with respect to all other claims in the case, as well."  The Court disagreed with both parties' argument and held, instead, that the defendants were not subject to personal jurisdiction over the tortious interference claim because that claim does not arise from their contacts in Virginia.

This is an important case not just for the legal issues involved, but also as a reminder that some of the simplest and logical extensions of cases have yet to be rendered into explicit and binding holdings.